Skip to main content

Full text of "Minutes"

See other formats


5 CLOSED 
STACKS 



UJ 



SAN FRANCISCO 
PUBLIC LIBRARY 



REFERENCE 
BOOK 

Not la he lahcit Jiiim the Ubniry 



J M< 



SAN FRANCISCO PUBLIC LIBRARY 



3 1223 05718 3304 



Digitized by the Internet Archive 
in 2013 



http://archive.org/details/6minutes1999sanf 




City and County of $an Francisco 

Meeting Minutes 
^Finance and Labor Committee 

Members: Supervisors Leland Yee, Sue Bierman and Tom Ammiano 
Clerk: Mary Red 



City Hall 

1 Dr. Carlton B 

Goodlett Place 

San Francisco, CA 

94102-4689 



Wednesday, September 15, 1999 



10:00 AM 
Regular Meeting 



City Hall, Room 263 



Members Present: Leland Y. Yee, Sue Bierman, Tom Ammiano. 



Meeting Convened 

The meeting convened at 10:03 A.M. 

REGULAR AGENDA 



DOCUMENTS DEPT. 
SEP 2 1 1939 

SAN FRANCISCO 
PUBLIC LIBRARY 



991426 [San Francisco Swim Center Feasibility Study] 
Supervisors Yee, Bierman 

Resolution urging the Recreation and Park Department to perform a feasibility study of a San Francisco Swim 
Center at Larsen Park. 

7/19/99, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance and Labor Committee. 

Heard in Committee. Speakers: Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst; Joel Robinson, Acting General Manager, 
Recreation and Park Department: Supervisor Ammiano. In Support: Dick Alan; Norman Gong; Bud Wilson; 
Louise Snowden; Art Octavio, Manager, Sava Pool; Ann Curtis; Ben L. Horn; Ch Chooi Eng Grosso; Hans 
Hanson; Ron Dudum; Mathew Roberto. 
RECOMMENDED by the following vote: 
Ayes: 3 - Yee, Bierman, Ammiano 



991537 (Appropriation, S.F. Unified School District] 

Ordinance appropriating $60,713,766, San Francisco Unified School District, of school Bond proceeds for 

capital improvement projects on various school facilities, cost of issuance, and other related costs for fiscal 

year 1999-2000. (Controller) 

8/4/99, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance and Labor Committee. 

Heard in Committee. Speakers: Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst. Tim Tronson, S.F. Unified School District, 

Supervisor Yee; Supervisor Ammiano; Laura, Opshal. Mayor's Office; Ed Harrington, Controller. Continued 

to September 29. 1999. 

CONTINUED by the following vote: 

Ayes: 2 - Yee, Ammiano 

Absent: 1 - Bierman 



City and County of San Francisco 



Printed at 9:5$ <W on 9 I ' V9 



Finance and Labor Committee 



Meeting Minutes 



September IS, 1999 



991490 |MOU Amendment No. 1, Teamsters Local 856 Supervising Nurses full retirement contribution! 

Ordinance adopting and implementing the provisions of the amendment to the Memorandum of Understanding 
between Teamsters, Local 856 and the City and County of San Francisco for Supervising Nurses for the period 
July 1, 1998 through June 30, 2001 providing that all covered employees be placed into full retirement 
contribution status effective July 1, 1998 following approval of this ordinance. (Department of Human 
Resources) 

(Fiscal impact.) 

7/28/99, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance and Labor Committee 

Heard in Committee. Speakers: Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst; Alice Villagomez, Employee Relations 
Division, Department of Human Resources. 
RECOMMENDED by the following vote: 
Ayes: 3 - Yee, Bierman, Ammiano 



991491 |MOU Amendment No. 1, SEIU, Local 790 Staff and Per Diem Nurses full retirement contribution! 

Ordinance adopting and implementing the provisions of the amendment to the Memorandum of Understanding 
between SEIU, Local 790 and the City and County of San Francisco for Staff Nurse and Per Diem Nurses for 
the period July 1, 1997 through June 30, 2000 providing that all covered employees be placed into full 
retirement contribution status effective July 1, 1998 following approval of this ordinance. (Department of 
Human Resources) 

(Fiscal impact.) 

7/28/99, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance and Labor Committee 

Heard in Committee. Speakers: Harvey Rose. Budget Analyst: Alice Villagomez, Employee Relations 
Division, Department of Human Resources. 
RECOMMENDED by the following vote: 

Ayes: 3 - Yee, Bierman, Ammiano 



991146 [Discrimination Based on Perception. Association or Retaliation! 
Supervisor Ammiano 

Ordinance amending Administrative Code Chapter 12A by amending Sections 12A.1. 12 A. 5. and 12A.8. 
Chapter 12B by amending Sections 12B.1 and 12B.2, Chapter 12C by amending Sections 12C.1 and 12C.3. 
and amending Police Code Article 33 by amending Sections 3303, 3304 and 3305 to prohibit discrimination 
based on fact or perception, discrimination based on association with members of protected classes of persons 
or retaliation for opposition to discrimination. 

(Amends Administrative Code Chapter 12A Sections 12A.1, 12A.5 and 12A.8; Chapter 12B Sections 12B.1 

and 12B.2; Chapter 12C Sections 12C.1 and 12C.3; amends Police Code Article 33 Sections 3303. 3304 and 

3305.) 

6/7/99, ASSIGNED UNDER 30 DAY RULE to Housing and Social Policy Committee, expires on 7 7, 1 999. 

8/12/99, TRANSFERRED to Finance and Labor Committee. Request to consider this matter on September 15. 1999 

Heard in Committee. Speakers: Supervisor Ammiano; Supervisor Yee. In Support Cynthia Goldstein. 
Human Rights Commission; Kevin Buggy; John Siracusa. 
RECOMMENDED by the following vote: 

Ayes: 3 - Yee, Bierman, Ammiano 



City and County of San Francisco 



Printed at 9:55 AM on 9 1 7, V9 



3 1223 05718 3304 



Finance and Labor Committee 



Meeting Minutes 



September 15, 1999 



991625 [Annual Appropriation Ordinance Amendment - Art Commission] 

Ordinance amending the Annual Appropriation Ordinance for fiscal year 1999-2000, File Number 99-1052, 
Ordinance Number 208-99, adjusting appropriations to meet the requirements of the Art Commission pursuant 
to Charter Section 16.106. (Controller) 

8/18/99, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance and Labor Committee 
Heard in Committee. Speakers: Ed Harrington, Controller. 
RECOMMENDED by the following vote: 
Ayes: 3 - Yee, Bierman, Ammiano 



991626 [Tax Rate Setting - City and County of San Francisco] 

Ordinance providing revenue and levying taxes for City and County purposes and establishing pass-through 
for residential tenants pursuant to Chapter 37 of the Administrative Code for the fiscal year ending June 30, 
2000. (Controller) 

8/18/99, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance and Labor Committee. 

Heard in Committee. Speakers: Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst; Ed Harrington, Controller. 
RECOMMENDED by the following vote: 
Ayes: 3 - Yee, Bierman, Ammiano 



991627 [Tax Rate Setting - S.F. Unified School District] 

Ordinance providing revenue and levying taxes for San Francisco Unified School District purposes for the 
fiscal year ending June 30, 2000. (Controller) 
8/18/99, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance and Labor Committee. 

Heard in Committee. Speakers: Han'ey Rose, Budget Analyst; Ed Harrington, Controller. 
RECOMMENDED by the following vote: 
Ayes: 3 - Yee, Bierman, Ammiano 



991628 [Tax Rate Setting - S.F. Community College District] 

Ordinance providing revenue and levying taxes for San Francisco Community College District purposes for 
the fiscal year ending June 30, 2000. (Controller) 
8/18/99, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance and Labor Committee 

Heard in Committee. Speakers: Har\>ey Rose, Budget Analyst; Ed Harrington. Controller. 
RECOMMENDED by the following vote: 
Ayes: 3 - Yee, Bierman, Ammiano 



City and County of San Francisco 



Primed at *SS AM on ° r VQ 

7 45243 SFPL: ECONO JRS 
206 SFPL 11/22/00 61 



Finance and Labor Committee 



Meeting Minutes 



September IS. 1999 



991644 [1999 Finance Corporation Equipment Lease] 
Mayor 

Resolution approving the form of and authorizing execution and delivery by the City and County of San 
Francisco of an Equipment Lease Supplement No. 8 between the City and County of San Francisco Finance 
Corporation, as lessor, and the City and County of San Francisco, as lessee, with respect to equipment to be 
used for City purposes, a related certificate of approval and a continuing disclosure certificate; approving the 
issuance of Lease Revenue Bonds by said nonprofit corporation in an amount not to exceed S9,8O0,00O; 
providing for reimbursement to the City of certain City expenditures incurred prior to the issuance of Lease 
Revenue Bonds; and approving for the execution of documents in connection therewith and ratifying previous 
actions taken in connection therewith. 

(Fiscal impact.) 

8/23/99, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance and Labor Committee. 
Continued to September 22. 1999. 
CONTINUED by the following vote: 
Ayes: 3 - Yee, Bierman, Ammiano 



991 579 [Sewer Replacement, Polk Street| 

Resolution approving the expenditure of funds for the emergency work to replace the structurally inadequate 
sewer on Polk Street from Washington Street to Clay Street - $120,366. (Public Utilities Commission) 
8/12/99, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance and Labor Committee 

Heard in Committee. Speakers: Harvey Rose. Budget Analyst; Boon Urn. Construction Management. Public 
Utilities Commission; Supennsor Yee; Norman Chan. Project Manager. Department of Public Works 
RECOMMENDED by the following vote: 
Ayes: 3 - Yee, Bierman, Ammiano 



991593 [Single Family Mortgage Revenue Refunding Bonds, Drawdown Series 1999) 
Supervisor Bierman 

Resolution authorizing the issuance, sale and delivery of City and County of San Francisco Single Family 

Mortgage Revenue Refunding Bonds, Drawdown Series 1999, in an aggregate principal amount not to exceed 

$25,000,000; authorizing the execution and delivery of a trust indenture and a bond purchase contract; 

providing for the execution of documents in connection therewith and ratifying previous actions taken in 

connection therewith. 

8/16/99, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance and Labor Committee 

Heard in Committee. Speakers: Harvey Rose. Budget Analyst; Joe LaTorre. Mayor's Office of Housing 

AMENDED, AN AMENDMENT OF THE WHOLE BEARING NEW TITLE. 

Resolution authorizing the issuance, sale and delivery of City and County of San Francisco Single Family 

Mortgage Revenue Refunding Bonds, Drawdown Series 1999, in an aggregate principal amount not to exceed 

$25,000,000; authorizing the execution and delivery of a trust indenture and a purchase contract; providing for 

the execution of documents in connection therewith and ratifying previous actions taken in connection 

therewith. 

RECOMMENDED AS AMENDED by the following vote: 

Ayes: 3 - Yee, Bierman, Ammiano 



SPECIAL ORDER AT 11:00 A.M. 



City and County of San Francisco 



Printed at 9:55 AM on 9 /" V9 



Finance and Labor Committee 



Meeting Minutes 



September 15, 1999 



991612 [Federal Bureau of Investigation's Probe of Awarding of City Contracts to Minority Owned Businesses) 
Supervisors Ammiano, Yee 

Hearing to consider the Federal Bureau of Investigation's probe of awarding City contracts to minority owned 
businesses. 

8/16/99, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance and Labor Committee. 

Heard in Committee. Speakers: Supervisor Ammiano; Dennis Aftergut, Chief Assistant City Attorney; 
Supervisor Bierman; Supervisor Becerril; Supervisor Yee; Agar Jakes, Human Rights Commission; Romulus 
Asenloo, Human Rights Commission; Peter Nardoza, Airport; Douglas Wong, Executive Director, Port; 
James Morales, Executive Director, Redevelopment Agency; Mark Primeau, Director, Department of Public 
Works; Ronnie Davis, Executive Director, Housing Authority; Willie Ratcliffe, African American Contractors 
ofS.F. ; Gerald Johnson, Small Business Exchange; Jack Williams; Bill Greene, operating engineers; Beth 
Arron, BABCA; Rae Harrison; Helen Marte-Bautista; Alice Bulos; Jimmie Potts; Harry Jamerson; Stan 
Smith, S.F. Building Trades Council; AH Altaha; Larry Edman; Ena Aguirre; Girard McKinney; Nate Mason, 
Executive Director, Economic Opportunity Council; Harold Yee. Asian, Inc.; Beth Youhn, Local 3/crane 
operator; Harry Baker, Local 790; Steve Kawa, Mayor's Office; Ted Lakey, Deputy City Attorney. 
CONTINUED TO CALL OF THE CHAIR by the following vote: 
Ayes: 3 - Yee, Bierman, Ammiano 



991561 [MBE/WBE/LBE Program] 
Supervisor Yee 

Hearing to consider the June 1, 1999 Quarterly Report to the Mayor and the Board of Supervisors on Chapter 
12D of the San Francisco Administrative Code - the 1997-1999 Investigation Into Minority/Women Business 
Participation in City Contracting. 

8/9/99, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance and Labor Committee. 

Heard in Committee. Speakers: Supervisor Yee; Beth Arron; Ed Tong, Asian, Inc.; Bill Greene; Willie 
Ratcliffe; Ena Aguirre; Oren Sellstrom, Lawyer's Guild; Jack Williams; Agar Jakes. Continued to September 
22, 1999. 

CONTINUED by the following vote: 
Ayes: 3 - Yee, Bierman, Ammiano 



ADJOURNMENT 

The meeting adjourned at 1:43 P.M. 



City and County of San Francisco 



Primed at 9.-SS AM on 9 / " VO 



354 



CITY AND COUNTY 




Public Library, Gov't Information Ctr.. 5 th Fir. 
Attn: Susan Horn, Dept. 41 



OF SAN FRANCISCO 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

1390 Market Street, Suite 1025, San Francisco, CA 94102 (415) 554-7642 
FAX (415) 252-0461 



September 10, ISS^QCUMENTS DEPT 
TO: Finance and Labor Committee «__ . ,„„ 

SEP 1 5 1989 

FROM: .Budget Analyst SAN FRANCISCO 

SUBJECT: September 15, 1999 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting PUBLIC LIBRARY 
Item 1 - File 99-1426 



Department: 
Item: 

Description: 



Comments: 



Recreation and Park Department 

Resolution urging the Recreation and Park Department to 
perform a feasibility study of constructing a Swim Center 
at Larsen Park. 

The proposed resolution urges the Recreation and Park 
Department to conduct a study regarding the feasibility of 
constructing a Swim Center, including an Olympic-size 
swimming pool, to be located at the site of the existing 
Sava Pool in Larsen Park, at 19 th Avenue and Vicente 
Street. 

1. According to Ms. Audree Jones-Taylor of the Recreation 
and Park Department, the proposed Swim Center, which 
would be located in the northern end of Larsen Park, 
would contain an enclosed structure consisting of two 
separate swimming pools, one which would measure 50 
meters in length (which is Olympic-size), and the other 
which would measure 22.75 meters in length. The 
existing Sava Pool, which is located in the southern end of 
Larsen Park, is 33 1/3 meters in length. Ms. Jones-Taylor 
states that, although this is the initial proposal, the 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

September 15, 1999 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



proposal could be altered significantly prior to final 
approval of the project. 

2. Ms. Deborah Learner of the Recreation and Park 
Department, reports that a study of the feasibility of 
constructing a Swim Center which includes an Olympic- 
size swimming pool and other facilities, would consist of 
two parts: (a) a process which allows public input on the 
proposed Swim Center, and (b) a cost-benefit analysis of 
the alternatives, which include renovation or 
reconstruction of the existing Sava Pool, or construction of 
a new swimming facility. Ms. Learner reports that the 
public input process would include a discussion regarding 
the continued use of Larsen Park as an open space area or 
a reduction in open space for the construction of the Swim 
Center. 

3. According to Mr. Mario Avendano of the Recreation 
and Park Department, no comprehensive study has been 
done on the infrastructure of Sava Pool, which is 50 years 
old, to determine the need for renovation or 
reconstruction of the pool. 

4. Mr. Gary Hoy of the Department of Public Works 
reports that two feasibility studies have been performed 
by DPW, with assistance from outside consultants, on two 
other San Francisco swimming pools, as follows: 

- Hamilton Pool: The study included an investigation of 
the existing conditions of the pool and an analysis of the 
alternatives, such as renovation or reconstruction of the 
existing pool. 

- King Pool: The study included (a) an assessment of the 
existing structure, which resulted in a determination to 
demolish the existing pool, and the requirement for a 25- 
meter pool, (b) an assessment of the feasibility of building 
a new structure, and (c) community hearings on the 
proposed new swimming structure. 

As a result of each of these two studies, a new King Pool 
swimming facility is currently being constructed at a cost 
of approximately $8,700,000, with monies from the 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

September 15, 1999 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

General Fund Reserve and the Open Space Fund. No 
construction work was performed at Hamilton Pool. 

5. Mr. Joel Robinson of the Recreation and Park 
Department states that the Department would need to 
obtain approval from the Open Space Advisory 
Committee, a 23-member citizens advisory committee 
appointed by the Board of Supervisors and the Mayor, to 
conduct a feasibility study, including expending 
Department funds for the Larsen Park Swim Center and 
retaining an outside consultant for the study. Mr. 
Robinson states that the cost of the feasibility study 
would be a minimum of $25,000, based on the 
Department's experience with other feasibility studies. 
According to Mr. Robinson, the Recreation and Park 
Department would either have to budget funds for the 
proposed feasibility study in the FY 2000-01 Department 
budget, or request a supplemental appropriation, using 
either General Fund or Open Space Fund monies. 

According to Ms. Learner, the Department is unable to 
provide preliminary cost estimates for the renovation or 
reconstruction of Sava Pool or for construction of a new 
Swim Center at Larsen Park, because (a) as of the writing 
of this report, sufficient information is not available 
regarding the scope of work required to renovate or 
reconstruct Sava Pool, and (b) the scope of the proposal 
for a new Swim Center has not yet been defined. Ms. 
Learner states that costs for reconstruction or renovation 
of Sava Pool or for construction of a new Swim Center 
could be funded partially by Open Space Fund monies, 
subject to appropriation approval of the Board of 
Supervisors, but that additional funds may be required 
from other sources, such as a bond measure. 

Recommendation: Approval of the proposed resolution is a policy matter for 

the Board of Supervisors. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

September 15, 1999 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



Item 2 -File 99-1537 

Department: 

Item: 



Amount: 
Source of Funds: 

Description: 



San Francisco Unified School District (SFUSD) 

Ordinance appropriating 860,713,766 of General 
Obligation Bonds (Educational Facility Bonds, 1997A - 
SFUSD) Series 1999B proceeds for capital improvement 
projects on various school facilities, cost of issuance, and 
debt service, for the San Francisco L T nified School District 
for fiscal year 1999-2000. 

$60,713,766 

General Obligation Bonds (Educational Facility Bonds, 
1997A - SFUSD) Series 1999B, hereafter referred to as 
"Educational Facility Bonds, Series 1999B". 

On June 3, 1997, a total of 890.000,000 in General 
Obligation Bonds for the construction and upgrading of 
SFUSD educational facilities was approved by the 
electorate. Educational Facility Bonds, Series 1999B 
were issued on June 16, 1999 for the construction and/or 
reconstruction of educational facilities far the SFUSD. 
According to Ms. Laura Opsahl-Bordelon of the Mayor's 
Office of Public Finance and Economic Development, the 
total Bond proceeds for Education Facility Bonds, Series 
1999B are in the amount of $60,713,766. 

The subject supplemental appropriation would 
appropriate the $60,713,766 in Bond proceeds for the 
following: (a) $60,287,090 for capital improvement 
projects on various SFUSD school facilities, (b) $235,050 
for bond issuance costs, and (c) $191,626 for debt service 
costs (accrued interest payments and a portion of the 
underwriter's premium). 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

September 15, 1999 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



Budget: 



The budget is summarized as follows: 



Purpose of Appropriation 


Incurred as 


Not Yet 


Total 




of 09/08/99 


Expended 


Estimated 
Costs 


New Schools 


$327,406 


$160,180 


$487,586 


Children's Centers 


1,329 


47,983 


49,312 


Science Laboratories 


376,178 


336,549 


712,727 


Seismic Upgrades 


1,330,265 


523,747 


1,854,012 


Technology Upgrades 


4,361,638 


9,489,840 


13,851,478 


Renovation 


25,656,418 


9,749,112 


35,405,530 


Health and Safety 


46,860 


14.328 


61,188 


Disability Access Improvements 


5,672,817 


2.142,964 


7.815,781 


Reduced Class Size 
Subtotal 


45.873 


3.603 
22.468.306 


49.476 
60,287,090 


37.818,784 


Bond Issuance Costs 





235,050 


235,050 


Debt Service 
TOTAL 





191.626 
$22,894,982 


191.626 
$60,713,766 


$37,818,784 



Attachment I, provided by the SFL T SD, contains a project 
budget for the proposed capital improvements totaling 
$60,287,090 for Phase I which would be funded by the 
Educational Facility Bonds. Series 1999B in FY" 1999- 
2000. 

Attachment I also contains the proposed capital 
improvements totaling $29,712,910 for Phase II. 
Together. Phases I and II account for the total SFUSD 
capital improvement program cost of $90,000,000. 
According to Mr. Tim Tronson of the SFUSD. the SFUSD 
will seek a second bond issuance to fund Phase II. He 
advises that the SFUSD anticipates, based on current 
project scheduling and subject to Board of Supervisors 
approval, that the second bond issuance will occur within 
the next 12-18 months. 



Comments: 



1. In November 1997, the Board of Supervisors 
authorized and directed the sale of General Obligation 
Bonds (Educational Facility Bonds, 1997 - SFUSD) Series 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

September 15, 1999 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

1998C not to exceed $47,000,000 (Resolution No. 149-98). 
Tbe issuance of General Obligation Bonds (Educational 
Facility Bonds, 1997 - SFUSD) Series 1998C was delayed 
due to litigation related to Proposition D which had been 
placed on the same June 3, 1997 ballot to authorize the 
City to issue Football Stadium Bonds to finance a portion 
of a new stadium development project at Candlestick 
Point. This litigation delayed bond counsel issuing a final 
opinion on the validity of the SFUSD bonds. 
Consequently, the SFUSD requested that additional Bond 
funds be issued to cover project costs for an additional 
year. On March 1, 1999 the Board of Supervisors 
authorized and directed the sale of Educational Facility 
Bonds, Series 1999B, not to exceed $64,000,000 (File 99- 
0200), thereby replacing the previous authorization of 
$47,000,000. This represented an increase of 

$17,000,000, or approximately 36 percent. 

Educational Facility Bonds. Series 1999B were issued on 
June 16, 1999 (File 99-1154). According to Ms. Opsahl- 
Bordelon, the total Bond proceeds for Education Facility 
Bonds, Series 1999B are in the amount of $60,713,766. 

2. According to Mr. Tronson, SFUSD capital 
improvement project expenditures of $37,818,784, or 
approximately 63 percent, of the subject $60,287,090 
capital improvements budget have already been incurred 
as of September 8, 1999, prior to obtaining Board of 
Supervisors approval. Attachment II is a memorandum 
from Mr. Tronson which explains why the SFUSD 
expended $37,818,784 of the subject funds prior to 
obtaining appropriation approval from the Board of 
Supervisors. 

Recommendation: Because expenditures of approximately 63 percent, or 

$37,818,784, of the total capital improvement budget of 
$60,287,090 have already been incurred by the SFUSD 
prior to obtaining appropriation approval from the Board 
of Supervisors, approval of the proposed ordinance is a 
policy matter for the Board of Supervisors. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Attachment I 
Pase 1 of 13 



_ a 

.2 O. 

3 X 

to UJ 



= o 



© re 

o — o 

C OL O 

re ex 



o 




£uJ 




Q < K 




u en en 




O — ui 




— q cr 




CO O t 


a 

o 


Q Ir z 


cr 

LU 


' -7- O. 


C- 


UN. 
SITIOI 
OF EX 


< 


> 


O O uj 


co 


O Q. b 




co O % 

n c - 

y OL I- 






Z "^ tn 




< £ ^ 




cr en 




u_ ■>- 




-z. 




< 




CO 





2 5 

a. a 



CO »- 
CM lO 






O 


_ 


rO 




CO 


co 


-r 


n 


d 


co 


N 


BJ 


CO 


\a 


co 


CO 


at 



C5| C5 

id m 
°.l °. 
o 10 

CM CN1 



O r- r- CO 

C r>- r>- O 

o cm l cm — 

o" t" "^" ^" 

c; o> en i*- 



co c nin oic cm 

eo = cm! o OIC co 

— — _ l»-J en oj S f»- 

■*T CM (xT B> 

r-- CM O I CM 



-J 



in co 



n 



co 



co co r>- 

co co m 

n to oi 



x Jtf 



re 


UJ 


CO 


co 


CD 










t^ 


CO 






















-r 












a 


UJ 


o 




"co 


5 


z: 


o 


2 



- g-E « 





X 




_o 




X 


ja 


X 






UJ 




n 




UJ 


]c 


UJ 






CD 




a 




CD 


"cc 


CO 
























CO 




n 




CO 




co 




a 




_o 




03 










"O 


E 




— 








CJ 


cc 




"5 


j; 


re 




JC 








(/> 


> 






05 




in 




D 

3 


UJ 

Is 


o 

5 
IT 


a 
S 

S 


3 
ex 
3 


UJ 

"co 


o 

? 

03 


UJ 
ffl 


3 
a 


a 

re 


o 


Z 


re 


o 


2 


o 


"5 


_1 


u 


H 


CO 

O 


a 


CO 

u 


r- 


_o> 

3 


r- 


o 

CO 




















re 




2 


- 


B 




£ 




5 


o 




" 


3 


u 




O 




o 


co 




O 


u 


CO 




O 




Z 



X J= 



75 UJ 



5 _ 5 _ 



c -£ o 



— 




X 




X 


a 


* 


a 




Ul 




UJ 


15 


UJ 


~£ 




ffi 




o 


"cc 


03 
















tr 




(0 




cc 


"tn 


~ 




03 


























js: 


re 




cc 




_^ 








m 


> 


(/) 




■ 


C 


a 


UJ 
iS 


o 
c 


"co 

5 


| 


111 

a 

c 


£ 


u 


J 


03 

cc 


i- 


03 


— 


3 




C 




"Z 





CO 








UJ 








- 








> 


CO 




c 


s 


UJ 


CO 


O 


, = 


-5 


2 


B 



Attachment T 
Page 2 of 13 



— -1 


cc -c- 


n 


n 


TT 


^- 


,«. 


|>» 


r- 


r^ 


in 


O 


r^ 


r— 


CM 


CM 


o 


a 


_ 





^_ 






o 


r^ 


o 




O 


O 


o 


O 


C-8 


ro 


o 


CT> 






o 


o 










a s h r - ,o - 


a 


c*3 


*— 


— 


— 


*■- 


OJ 


— . 


CTJ 


CD 


m 


CO 


O 


o 


o 


o 


o 


cr: 


CM 


r*. 


-. sj-^r cm 


o 


O 


fv» 


r^ 


IT3 


w 


CM 


CM 


CO 


t*3 


- ^- 


TT 


r^ 


r-. 


o 


o 


IO 


lt: 


_ 







— CC 


-j 


C3 






O 


o 


TT 


■C 


CM 


CM 


i^ 


f- 


=3 


O 


o 








r-i 




CD UJ 


r~- r*- 


C9 


CM* 


TT 


-^ - 


' 


~~ 






CM 


CM 






*" 


*" 


o 


o 


CM 


CM 


CM 


CM 


ia 












































HI 













































u — o 
C 0. a 



"to LU 



ffl LU 



O ID CC CD CO CD O 0) 





m 






D 


X 


CO 


UJ 


10 


c 


:r 


m 
















(fl 


a 
5 


UJ 




CD 






— 






"5 LU 





"O 




-3 




"O 




— 




































CD 




(D 




CD 




CD 


















a 
















X 




X 




X 




X 


<z 


LU 




LU 


cc 


LU 


S 


LU 


to 


CD 




CD 


"F5 


CD 


"3 


CD 


c/> 


CD 




CD 


tn 


CC 


tn 


rn 


















— 


cz 


— 


CT 


— 


C 


£1 


— 


J£ 


— ! 


c 


£2 


j^ 


:^ 




~ 


















3 

ID 


LU 

*CD 


a 


LU 

*CD 


3 


LU 
*CD 


O 

5 


LU 


2 


o 


"5 


O 




o 




a 


c 


h- 


o 


1— 


a> 


!~ 


5 


t— 






u 






























en 














































5 












— 






c 




c 





_x cc =: 



a 


a 


o 


LU 


5 




tJ 


~i 


ID 



























a 




_j 


_; 


h- 


3 


CO 


a 






















CD 






a 


u 


a: 




J 


0T 


tn 





g LU g UJ 






i— 1— i_ |: 



**: "5 



C/3 






2 


CJ 




— 


O 












CO 




CO 


LU 




UL 


ffl 


U 


•z 


*5 


O 



Attachment I 
Paae 3 of 13 



O 



a-gs 



~ xl™ 



to 5 o 
(J — o 
ECO 
m cm 



o. 5) 



52 




Q < 5 




mJ C/J CO 




O — uj 




— q rr 






n 



<~> 2 


c 


2 c 


UJ 
Q. 


UN. 

srno 
or ex 


< 

UJ 

> 


O O uj 


rj 


CJ C it 




98=3 








^ 1~ to 




< a 1 " 




CT C3 




U_ "«- 




-z. 




< 




C/J 





n —I — 



cm l cm_ -c 
cm" I cm" o" 



CM CM — 



O 05 — I © CM I cm 

01 cc o iniT co i eo 
n I o — r-J en a>_| en 

cm* n"! in in i ir: 

en cs cm oi as 

cm — ^ CM CM 



ldi in 

CM CM 



ir. a i ir. — ■ — 

— ol — " coi cc 

cs -r I cm co i cc 

cm cm i LA 



CD 




CJ 




a> 




CJ 




aj 






ID 




CD 




CO 




co 






CJ 




CD 
















































3 




3 




3 




3 




3 






3 




3 




3 




3 






3 




3 






























































































■a 




"3 




■o 




-3 














































C 














































































,- w 




V 




CO 




CO 




CO 


_ 




CO 


^ 


co 


,_ 


co 


_ 


CO 


_ 




a) 




- 
















































-2 x" 


_o 


x~ 


_o 


x" 


_o 


x" 


_p 


x" 


_C 




x" 


_g 


x" 


_c 


x" 


J5 


x" 


_w 




x" 


_c 


K 


To UJ 


To 


UJ 


To 


UJ 


To 


UJ 


To 


UJ 


To 




UJ 


To 


UJ 


To 


UJ 


To 


UJ 


To 




L£J 


To 


_ 
















































To co 


"5 


CD 


To 


a> 


To 


CJ 


To 


CO 


To 




CO 


To 


CD 


"5 


CD 


To 


CO 


~E 




■ 


To 


1 


<n CC 


en 


CC 


CO 


cc 


vi 


re 


en 


cc 


en 




CO 


en 


CC 


en 


cc 


en 


cc 


en 




re 


en 


| 






















CD 






















































































































JC cc 


J£ 


CC 


JC 


cc 


JC 


~ 


JC 


cc 


j£ 


■ 


cc 


3C 


CC 


JC 


cc 


-i 


cc 


^ 




~^. 


je: 


cz 


= "> 




en 




in 




Cfl 




en 






en 




to 




en 




If) 






en 




j" 


To re 


C 
0) 


UJ 

Tc 


o 
a) 


UJ 
To 


5 


UJ 

Tc 


1 

to 


UJ 

"cc 


O 
CD 


o 

"T 


UJ 

To 


o 

CD 


UJ 

To 


o 

i 

CO 


UJ 

Tc 




UJ 
Tc 


cc 


CD 


Tc 


I 

CD 


UJ 

a 


"^ o 


2 


o 




o 


Z 


o 


jr 


o 


z 


~E 


o 


Z 


o 


z 


o 


Z 


o 




c. 


5 


z 


a 


s •- 


IS 


t- 


a; 


H 


a 


'<— 


c 


r— 


o 


_i 


r- 


CO 


'<— 


CO 


!~ 


o 


i~ 


B 


- 


- 


c 


— 






















to 


























3 


3 






















































































C 












































— 


E 




BJ 




~ 




= 




E 


5 




E 




E 




E 




S 


~" 




*c 




O 


<3 




5 




5 




o 




o 


_ 




o 




o 










- 




C 




o 




U 




u 




O 




U 


BO 




(J 




O 




u 




u 


-'. 




u 










O 




CO 


















CO 

■5 



















CO 


c 


c 




UJ 




a 


CO 


CO 


CJ 


u 


UJ 



- = 



Attachment I 
Page 4 of 13 



IU 

3 X 
CO LU 



= o 

o = 

= E o 

,- rsl 



O 
— O 

e O 
in cn 



T-IC 

t-- ml c\j 

— r— I CD 



C = Q. 



cm I cm 

an a 
to i in 



-X 


X 


u 




X 


_o 


X 


_o 


X 


c 


111 


J5 




111 


"5 


111 


"cc 


LL! 




















"5 


CD 


15 




CD 


"5 


CD 


"5 


CD 




















in 


CD 


in 




CD 


m 


CD 


"35 


to 





















— 


tr 


— 


— 


C 


— 


cz 


— 


z 


-X. 




JC 


IS 








J£ 






03 






CO 




CO 




t/5 


O 
D 


IU 
"cc 


O 
CD 


3 
Q. 

3 


111 

"j5 


o 

IS 


UU 

5 


5 
$ 

<s 


"5 


2 


o 


2 


.a 

CD 


O 


Z 


o 


Z 


5 


<5 


h- 


<D 


_) 


"- 


E 


h- 


5 


.— 








CD 












3 




D 








3 




a 










c. 




C. 




E 




E 


£ 












o 




o 


u 




5 




O 




O 




O 


CO 




O 




O 





cdi cd 

CMl CM 

csi en 



Sa o P- 



"5 w 



o 






o 












CD 












- 






CD 




CO 


o 


o 


LU 


c 


o 


>• 



CD cdI CD 
CD CM I CD 

CJ5 r«-j CD 

CD* r-l t~ 

cm Cin 
■c cd 



« X ^ 



-; — j£ — .3; cc 

— co — to t j=, a 
| UJ | UJ °|q 



o 


2 "S 


1- 


£ -" 




-= CD 








E ® 




O o 




O CO 



in I in 
cd cd 
nl cd 



r- O 



— co — 



cd -c- cm ol ro 

CD r~- 35 Ol O) 
CD_ r>-_ —_ o_| CM_ 

n ai r o"i r--~ 
<D r- — Ol CM 
cd cd k- o 



CD tt CM O 

CD r-- O O 

O N - o 

O IB* T O* 

n s — o 

n c n c 



— UJ = -= ■= 



5 ,° 



IT 


u 








en 






3 




CO 




















CD 




IS 




> 











c 


3 


CD 




CD 

z 




— 


5 


3 




a 




r; 










OD 
O 


_w 


CO 

u 


a 














a 


HB 


JZ 


o 


u 


IS 


O 


o 


00 


CO 



10 



Attachment I 
Paee 5 of 13 






_ 




,1 


<z 


_ 


r-- 1 


c 


o 


3_ 




a 


CO 








a. 


HI 

"in 
ID 


ru 



e ° 
I •§ 

CD ■ cm 
2 en 

0. a> 



S5 



LU 
O 

■z. 

< % 

D O 

C/) "- 

co to 

— LU 

a tr 

o t o 

a g JP 

< UJ 

Z c- 

o x 



CO O 

O uj 

° i 

cr ^ 

a. i- 

03 



< 

CO 



_ o 



•U- in 

— UJ 

-a: — 

o JS 

5 ,° 



O 

_ O 

2 .= 



o ^ 
5 P 



re LU 
re <D 



I - 
(C co 



CM 031 CM 

CNJ 35 I CM 

CM CM I ID 

— " — "i CM* 



cm o> 

CM O) 
CM CM 



— _^ re — 



LU 

S 3 « 



5 -5- 



*3.2 



CMI CM 
CMI CM 



_re LU 

"re c 



= LU 



r— | f- r^| t>- 
OIC OIO 

CM CM CO C7 



s>l en 
mi in 
col CO 

cni o" 
w in 

CM CM 



X LU 





X 


^u 


^ 




LU 


re 


LU 




CD 


"re 


CD 












CO 




■ 


CO 








■a 


C 


— 


~ 


■ 




JC 






CO 




IT 




LU 


5 
5 


LU 


3 


"5 




"3 



7^ ■— "7^ ^ ~ 



0)1 ffl 

en m 
ml in 



01 cc 

CM CM 



J= X J- 



■ LU 



— J£ — 



"S -* — 



5 — 5 ^ 

2 "5 Z O 



co O 



11 



Attachment I 
Paee6of 13 



re -a ra — O 

ZZ ^ 1 LTO CDI CT> 

- eJeo « 

d5 ui r* ™ 



U — O 

= a. o 



2 -2 



t 



CI o "5 
a. u co 



— col cd cr 

CS CO I O CM 



_c 


UU 


"5 


CD 






cr 


cs 










JC 


~ 




en 


o 
5 


LU 


X 


75 



_ 5 _ 



£ LU 

3 TS 



co i co CD — rr 

— • — n O to\ 

cdi cd cd — cdi 



£ ffl - ! 

rtj LU ts L 

75 jD 75 



CO — I — 



Ol C CD CO CNJl CD 

=oi co n co oio 

CM CM CD l*~ CO O 



Q 


«— 


T 


a 


in 


m 


q 


— 


eo 


C " 


cc" 


cm" 


io 


o; 


cc 




!-- 


cc 



_~ 


HI 




a 




7c 


CD 


to 


7c 












CO 


CC 




c/i 




c: 




_o 


CI 


ffl 












.2C 




CD 


^c 


cc 




CO 


> 






3 
5 
c 




O 
CD 

tr 

CO 


5 
5 

e 


CT* 

3 


2 


o 


ZZ 












CO 




CD 


O 










CD 
O 


2 




U 




p 




"^ 


z 


E 












□ 









u 


u 




o 


u 


CO 



— -SC — 



t>- — CO 

CO IT3 LO 

w r-- j cm 

TT cd"i co" 

cd cni ir: — 

IT3 — 



75 LU 
7c co 






5 


d 


cc 


3 




S3 




re 


2 


75 


C 


a 


_j 


r- 


o 


c 
u 


















5 




5 


(J 




O 


cc 





12 



Attachment I 
Pa2e7of 13 



ir ISicnl cn 

2 Slsls' 

~ x 



— cn 

= o « 

o ° o 

5 ^ n 



n ui cn 









2 cn 


^ 






— cn 


o 






0. cn 










^LU 








£S 








Q < 


c: 









a. 

GO 






o - 


LU 






T" r ^ 


K 








3 







2: 


Q 

c 


rr 

LU 

C 






X 


< 




u. 




LU 
> 




O O 


LU 


cn 




O CL 


J— 






00 O 


< 

2 






3£ 






_ 






2 ~- 


in 




1 


< s 


in 




~ 


tr C5 






1 


u_ *- 






1 


z: 






c 


< 








oo 









ol tc oil cn 

— — OIC3 

cmI cm MS 



re LU 



-^- O Z O 



n n isiuo cm cni cm 
cm 1 cm a :r> . a 
n c*3 t cm r- 



CMI CM_ CM_ 

CM~i CM* T 

— — Ci 

CM CM — 



cm 
in 1 in 
©I cs 

cn i a 010 

LTJ I IT. -- 

CM CM »- — 








c 




CO 




53 






a> 




cu 




CO 


_ 


■ 


_o 


x" 


_5 


x" 


_5 


x" 


5 




c. 

X 


_o 


c 

X 


_5 


x" 


J5 


x~ 


a 


LU 


re 


LU 


"re 


LU 


tc 




LU 


"re 


LU 


re 


LU 


re 


UJ 
































a 


_co 


"re 


jD 


"re 


_C0 


"re 




O 


~a 


a> 


re 


O 


5 


_w 


cr 


re 


cn 


CC 


CO 


re 


cr. 




re 


"cn 


re 


cn 


ro 


cn 


_ 
















CO 














































_s: 


^ 


JC 


— 




™ 


_*£ 


■ 


£ 


JCt 


2 


j£ 


ss 


jc: 


— 




w 




cn 




cn 






cn 




cn 




en 




■ 


I 


LU 

"5 


O 

CO 


LU 

5 


J 

CO 


LU 



5 

e 


cr 

3 


LU 

"re 


O 
5 




LU 

"rc 


O 

| 
■ 


LU 

75 


O 

"5 


LU 

a 




■^ 




O 




O 




■ 


O 




O 


z 





Z 







l_ 












_J 


I— 














a 




CO 




CO 




CO 




CO 




0) 




CD 








5 




2 




X 


CO 






s. 




S_ 




C. 





— JC — 



S = 5 



5 _ 



-^ o 



13 



Attachment T 
Pase 8 of 13 



o cc o 
u — o 

= 0. a 



O 



c o 



t !!! 






£2 






Q < 


~ 






u 




( ) - 


LiJ 




— Q 


E 




CO O 


3 





« C2 


_ 




H< 


2 
LXJ 


c. 


■z. 


CL 


±i 


X 
UJ 


< 

II 


->s 


c 


> 


O n 


l^J 


m 


O c 


— 




CO O 






9^ 




— 




2 r* 


cn 




< fi; 


UJ 




c: m 






LL. *- 






2 






< 






CO 







C9 


=3 





_ 


Si 


cn 


Id 


in 


en 


cn 


cn 


C2 


— CM 


en 


cn o 


cn 


cn 


cn 


to — 


^_ 






o 








un 


it; 


o 


IC5 


CM 


CM 


O co cn 


r*. 


CM CO 




CM 


CM 


cn cn 




l>~ 


P*^ 


CM 


CM 


o 


CO 


C"3 


cn 


TT 


•v 


~— 


-~ 


con 


CM 


r-- ■>- 


cn 




— 


r— IT3 


r^ 


CO 


CO 


cn 


cn 


CM 


CM 


cn 


cn 


— 


— 


m 


ITI 


O CM r— 


c 


r-T cm" 


CD 


IT3 


m 


to cn 


~ 


cc 




o 


cc 


cn 




cn 


cn 


CO 


CO 




TT 


C — T 


CO 


C CM 


CM 


■^- 




IT} r«- 


cn 


CM 


CM 






CM 


CM 


CM 


CM 


CM 


CM 


CM 


CM 


c c ? 


CM 

cn" 


cn in 




CM 


CM 


m cm 





no o 

t o n 

tt CD CM_ 

cn ■— " 



<D 



J£ — _C j£ CO — 



5 _ 





CD 




(D 




CD 




0) 




m 






















_o 


x" 


_o 


X 


O 


x~ 


_o 


x" 


_o 


x" 


"co 


UJ 


"m 


UJ 


J5 


UJ 


jc 


HI 


"co 


'j- 1 


"5 


CO 


o 


© 


"ca 


03 


"co 


CD 


"5 


c 






















V) 


CO 


cn 


CD 




co 


cn 


co 


cn 


re 






















— 


c 


— 


c 


— 


c 


-CI 


n 


— 


— 


JC 




j: 








-^ 




-3C 






cn 




W 




CO 




«n 




M 


o 
3 

CO 


HI 
"co 


O 

o 


LU 


I 

CD 


UJ 


o 

e 


UJ 

5 


o 

CD 


UJ 


2 


o 


2 


O 


2 


o 


2 


o 


2 


a 



CJ CO 



"5 UJ 



CO 

LU 
"co 


3 

m 


o 


09 

5" 


CO 

UJ 
"co 


C5 o 

=1 


■ 
UJ 

"5 


o 


o 


Z 




o 


-=> 2 


c 


H 


o 


■ 




I— 


- 1 5 


r- 








© 




<B — 






CO 


~ 


u 




g i. 






5 


E 


0) 




J2 E 





co UJ 



n H- o ■ — S CZ. 



X « x i; 



JC — -2C 



5- J^ 



BO 


— 








UJ 


~ 


5 






re 


o 



O CO 



14 



« -jl Hcm 



II] 



o 

i— 

CO 

Q 

_! 

o 
o 

- Q 



u — o 

-CO 



X o 

m « cm 



Q. (J) 



Z> 

o 
o 

CO 

o 
< 



< 

co 



o 

L_ 
CD 
UJ 

cr 

3 Q 

^o 

1| 

x tr 

UJ < 
L. £ 



Attachment I 
Pase9of 13 



ol in 
n en 
ol m 






— CM 



CM I CM 
=3 G 



>-- — ' — 



cm C OlN — — r^l r*. r>— I r>- 

t o Ol C f^l i~- -*3- 

efi CD 3 CM OIC f>» 

»' o" ol o" CD I CD* OJ 

a t o|v — — tv. 

CM 





3 




3 




3 




3 




— 




3 








— 




































































TJ 








■3 




"5 




"O 




•D 




















C 




















































_ 


CD 




0) 




CD 




CD 


m 


CD 


_ 


CD 


_ 






■ 




C 
X 






























o 


_o 


X 


_o 


x" 


_o 


x" 


_S 


x" 


_o 


x" 


J2 






x" 


jb 


UJ 


m 


LU 


"S 


UJ 


"5 


UJ 


5 


UJ 


ni 


UJ 


"cc 






J_ 


o 


cd 


"S 


CO 


"5 


CD 


ffi 


CD 


"5 


CD 


■ 


CD 


"5 






1 


































l/> 


CO 


<n 


CO 


en 


cc 




CG 


in 


CO 


in 


CC 


IO 






■ 




























■ 






































































JC 


s 


JC 


:o 


j£ 


^ 


JC 


^ 


jc: 


33 


-x. 


ss 


oe 


■ 




— 




en 




10 




en 




in 




in 




m 




~ 




en 


c 


UJ 


5 

- 


111 

"5 


5 
S 

CD 


UJ 
7c 


5 
S 

CD 


UJ 

"cc 


5 

CD 


UJ 
5 


O 
CD 


UJ 

5 


O 
J 

CD 


5" 


■ 
a 


UJ 

a 


^_ 


O 




o 




o 




5 




5 


z 


o 


2 


■ 


o 


cu 


f- 


_£ 


r— 


CD 


L— 


CD 


i— 


CD 


i - 


CD 


f- 


CD 




- 


s~ 




























CD 

o 


_l; 
















D 




























C. 












C 


































■ 


7 




































O 




o 
u 




C 

o 




U 




O 




O 

o 




U 


_ 

03 


I 
■s. 












cc 




i 
















3 




3 




r 




































"2 


























- 


CD 


_ 


g 


_ 


i 


2 


X 


z 


x~ 


_o 


k 


a 


UJ 


S 


UJ 


J5 


UJ 


■ 


jD 


a 


_CD 


"re 


a 



| UJ 



— en 

= UJ 



15 



Attachment I 
Pase 10 of 13 



— 1 1 — t r- 



— co 

= x 
en uj 



— o 



OIO -rri -c- 

Ol O tT3 I O 



ro £ col cm 
ro ?5 Ol CO 



Of O — I — n c: s 
O I O o I O cr> cd ■*- 

cm I cm cd co r>- 



— oj l en 



cm — I n 
> nic 
— to_ I r~-_ 

o" coi o" 



co 



'— 



n t\i o 



r; csic 
cm om 

cm -^-| r^ 



col CO 
Ol o 
Ol o 
CO CO 

Ol o 
CM CM 



I O 

01 O 

i»| m 

c*5 I ?; 

CNI CM 



a 



2 a> 

0. o> 



2 3 



a 
5g 








UJ < 




1 — 


,. Ol 


D 


en 


O > 


O 


n 


LU l ' J 


' J 


□ 


J— 


£ 


o 


< 

2 


"^* 


CL 


CO 




N- 


UJ 




OJ 




LE. 


en 




U_ 


T— 




< 






CO 









■a 




— 




■a 




























CD 




CD 




CD 














a 


x" 




x~ 


_o 


x~ 


a 


LU 




LU 


ro 


LU 


"5 


CD 




CD 


"5 


o 


in 


CO 




CO 


in 


cz 


















a 












c 
■a 








_2£ 


"to 


"55 


J£. 


m 


c 
3 

o 


LU 


ta 


LU 

J5 


o 

CD 


LU 
5 


-* 


O 


"5 


o 


y 






CO CO 

O r» 
n o 



CM — 

— to 


CTJ O 
CM O 


co n 
CO r-~ 
o cm 


CO *- 

CO *» 

CM -V 



_ 5 £5 5 

- co £ m -> ro 



jr 


X 


u 




X 


^z 




X 


_o 


X 


CO 


LU 


"5 




LU 


"E 




LU 


ro 


UJ 






















« 


CD 


"5 




CD 


"CD 




CD 


"5 


09 


X 


co 


en 




co 


en 




CC 


en 


cr 








c 






CD 








— 


cr 


— 




c 


— 




fc 


— 


c 


^c 






CO 




-3C 


CC 




J£ 






c/> 






CO 






ID 




en 


s 

c 


LU 

"5 


O 

CO 


3*/ 

5" 


LU 


o 
3 

CD 


a 


LU 


5 
3 

CD 


"5 


Z 


5 


Z 


"cc 


.o 


Z 


7E 


c 




c 


5 


i — 


CD 


_l 


<— 


CD 




I - 


CD 


^- 








CD 






CD 
























~ 




?; 


O 




Q 


U 




5 





E CD — 

o ; ?iu 



35-1: J! $ Z JI 



^ o z c 



16 



Attachment I 
Page 11 of 13 



(0 


• 1 


in 


m 


83 


o 


h. 


l~- 


^ 


r^ 


_ 


_ 


IO 


Ln 


in 


ITS 


o 


CS 


_ 


^. 


CS 


o 


o 


Q 


-J 


CM 




LCD 


m 


CM 


CM 


UT 


m 


-r 


^- 


t>- 








o 








CS 






5 






cs 




c 


- 


n 


<T3 


to 


IO 


OT 


C5 


CM 


CM 


UT 


UT 


CO 


© 


n 


t— . 


o 


cs 


^ 


cs 


CS 


o 


CS 


CS 






„ 


— 


T 


N. 


r-^ 


CM 


CM 


n 


m 


O 


Q 


r*~ 


r^ 


CM 


CM 


— 


— 


CM 


O 


PI 


- 


CS 


g 


in 








^ 


n 


n 


o 


SI 


O 


o 


a 


CO 


CO 


O 




p-> 


CI 


in 


IT. 




in 


113 








o 


~ 


Cfi 


LL1 
ID 

tu 


CM 


CM 






O 


O 


n 


P3 










rj 


o 


CM 


CM 


rj 




cs 


— 


T 


IO 




uo* 



= o 

o re o 

u — o 

s a. o 



o 







Q < C 




y en en 




O — uj 




— q tr 




co O = 


Q 




~ a ° 

Q <r 2 

••j <*. LU 




2- c. 




UN. 
SITIO 
OF EX 


21 
< 


> 


OOuj 


O 


o a. b 




co O S 




o - - 

^- J Q_ !- 




^ i~ w 




^ ra ^ 




E en 




U_ — 




-z. 




< 




CO 







c 




— 




— 




co 




a> 




B 














G 


X 


O 


X 


O 


X 


~ 


LU 


re 


LU 


re 


LU 


- 


CD 


*ro 


CD 


"re 


B 



ZZICO 

sig 



_ eu 



- <e 



■*■ 9 x — x 



_ CD _ CD 

£■ 5 



re LU re LU 
foQ) rejD ]c © si — 

ui CQ in CQ en CC w (u 



_ as 

.2 x" 

re LU 



1 — 
re c 



~z -* — 



— JC 



-s: — 





(/> 
















en 


; : 


LU 


o 


LU 


O 

5 


LU 


o 


LU 


1 


LU 


B 


CO 


a> 


CD 




cc 




cc 




g 


— 


o 


2 


O 




o 




o 




a 



jc — 



- cr, 

= LU 



- — - £. z. 

35 ^" 3S n " 

| UJ i g _ 

CO CC qj — cc 



= - m ^ 



= 5 _ 

— c f« 

o — 5 

£ £ ■" 

j ~ 

en E. 

5 = 

■ 

z u 



17 



Attachment I 
Paee 12 of 13 



ra -31 

O =! 



CM I CM 
CM CM 
O O 



en I en 
en I i2S 



co I C3 --J t- 

CM~i CM 
ml en 

cm cm 



CM CM 1- — i- 



O CO 



— CM 



CO — 



n in -la en I C2 

co cm in I c; cm | cm 

rs c _ »- 1 — to i cc 

CO © co"l r--* 

CO O CD I CM O O 

CO en — O CO CO 



u — o 
r c o 
n cm 



I •§ 

CD ui cm 
5 « 

0- cr. 





c 




c 




c 




c 




C 




c 




c 








r; 




C 




03 




CD 


^ 


ci} 


_ 


03 


_ 


CD 


_ 


CD 


^ 


CD 








CD 




CD 












c 

X 






























s 


x" 


_o 


X 


_o 


o 


x" 


_o 


X 


_o 


x" 


_o 


x" 




O 




x" 


_g 


>T 


75 


LU 


"to 


LU 


75 


LU 


J5 


LU 


75 


LU 


75 


LU 


75 


LU 




2 




LU 


je 


LU 


75 


0) 


"en 


CD 


75 


CD 


75 


CD 


75 


<D 


76 


03 


75 


CD 




75 




CD 


75 


CD 










































oi 


CO 


en 


CD 


en 


CO 


en 


CO 


en 


co 


en 


CO 


en 


co 




Cfl 




CO 


en 


CO 






























_o 




C 








— 


~ 


— 


C 


— 


ex 


— 


t 


— 


c 


— 


C 


— 


c 


— 




c 


Jl 


— 


^ec 




j; 




J£ 




-3C 












jc: 




75 


^ 


t5 




^e: 






en 




(/] 




en 




en 




en 




to 




en 


> 






en 




to 




LU 
75 


O 
CD 


UJ 

75 


O 

5 

CD 


LU 
75 


O 

5 

es 


LU 
75 


O 
CD 


LU 
75 


O 
CD 


LU 

75 


o 

CD 


LU 

75 


o 
53 

rr 


c 
5 

cc 


S3 

3 


LU 

75 


5 

CD 


LU 

75 


2 


O 


Tr 


o 


2 


o 




o 


2 


o 


2 


o 


2 


o 


Z 


75 


o 


2 


o 


m 


1— 


[k 


1- 


rn 


f— 


ni 


h- 


m 


r- 


en 


H 


CD 


r- 


CD 


m 


h- 


Jr 





2 Ej gp 

-= O U 

O CJ CO 



o 



U) CM 

2 en 

C CD 



co 



< £ 
=> o 



o 


UJ 

en 


en 




1 




uj 








i — 














z 


— 


- 


rn 


u 





c 


— 


m 


U 


c: 




< 




UJ 




T' 


c 


_ 


?■ 


o 


X 

UJ 


E 

< 



o 
o 

co 

U 

< 



< 
CO 



en O 
O uj 

° I 



re LU 



CO 






UJ 






_o 






~> 


o 




< 


u 




m 
D 


■ 


c/: 




E 


HI 


cr 


2 




£ 


CI 


I 


















> 




i 


> 



Attachment I 
Pase 13 ofl3 





g 


CNJ 


CM 


CM 


ID O 


ID 


co 


CO 


CO 


a 


IB 


in 


O 


o 




CD 




CO 


CO 


CM O 


CM 










r- 




o 


o 


£ I 


r^ 


^ 


■z. 


a 


lt: o 


ITi 


r^ 


r*- 


CO 


CD 


en 


en 


o 


— 




03 


o 


m 


LH 


CM O 


CM 


o 


co 


in 


o 


— 


— 


o 


o 


"5 x~ 


to 


CO 


ci 


en 


^r n 


r^ 


CO 


CO 


r- 


r- 




-r 


c 




en uj 


~j 


CM 


CM 


CM 


CM o 


°. 


CM 


CM 






CM 


CM 


o 


c . 
































HI 






























UJ 

































OJ 






CD 




<a 




CD 




v 




■ 




























o 


X 


.2 




X 


o 


x" 


_o 


X 


£ 


x" 




K 


a 


111 


75 




LU 


JE 


LU 


■ 


LU 


15 


LU 




LU 


n 


CD 


"cc 




CD 


"cc 


CD 


1= 


CD 


"B 


CD 




a 






























CO 


*sn 




re 


Ul 


CO 


trt 


re 


t/i 


CO 




rc 
















































































2* 




ji 






j: 








JC 




cs 






m 






in 




V) 




in 




(/) 


> 


i/^ 


O 

3 


LU 


5 


B 


LU 

To 


5 
5 

CO 


LU 


0) 


LU 


5 
5 

o 


LU 
5 


o 

CO 

K 


LU 

"5 




o 


Zl 


Si 
c 


o 


z 


O 


Z 


o 




O 


3 



19 



Attachment II 
Page 1 of 3 

S>irMyf SD SAN FRANCISCO 
UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT 

FACILITIES PLANNING & CONSTRUCTION 

Menmandum 

To: Alan Gibson, Budget Analyst 

CC: Enrique Navas, CFO 

From: Tim Trons 

Date: 09/10/99 

Re: Advance Expenditures 



In accordance with your request I am providing you with the San Francisco Unified School 
District's ("District") reasons and information related to advance expenditures of the 
anticipated proceeds from the General Obligation Bonds (Education Facility Bond, 1997A - 
San Francisco Unified School District), Series 1999B for educational improvements. The 
issues arc as follows: 

1. Since the passage of the Proposition A on June 3, 1997, the District has proceeded 

with the planning, review and construction of its bond funded projects. Because of 
the pendancy of the SF 49ers' case and bond counsel's position, the District could not 
sell the bonds to pay for the projects. Therefore, the District has fronted the costs of 
these projects from its own fund sources. The District has proceeded with these 
projects for the following reasons: 

(1 ) Long planning lead-time (see paragraph 2 below). 

(2) Availability of State funding (see paragraph 3 below). 

(3) Several of the projects affected the health and safety of the District's students 
and employees. The District intends to use a portion of its bond proceeds for 
such projects, including structural upgrades of buildings that do not meet 
current seismic codes. 

(4) Several of the projects improved the ability of students and employees with 
disabilities to utilize the District's facilities. The District intends to use a 
portion of its bond proceeds to address facilities lesiies that limit access to 
persons with disabilities. 

(5) Tnc implementation of classroom reduction statewide has placed severe 
constraints on this District's ability to house elementary school children. The 
average "students per classroom loading schedule" (statewide) has gone from 
32 students per classroom to 20 students per classroom. Consequentially, the 



i <;*i v„„„„„,h 4«mim "Unrnnriwa <-.A 94124 Wrnhone IA15) 695-5500 Fax (415) 695-566 
M3/T0 d iS9£ SS9 STfr 20 DNINNtnd^IJ.niDty CSOdS Tc :r T 6S6T-BT. 



TS:t>I 6=5T-ai-d35 



kzzac'r.zier.z II 
i*aee 2 cr 2 



September YO. ?999 



52 students per classroom to 20 students per classroom. Consequentially, the 
demand for elementary school facilities has exceeded the supply since the 
District houses far less students on the same school site. In San Franciscc, 
we arc accommodating a portion of the studcn: housing needs with the bond 
proceeds. These projects include the planning and construction of the new 
Parkside Elementary School, three new academic wings (Sheridan ES, Claire 
Lilienthal ES, Alice Fong Yu ES). a gymnasium, and an auditorium. 

2. The typical overall planning, review and construction process takes 2^-36 months , 

depending on the scope of the project. The District docs not go through the City 
Planning Department, for its plan review process, the construction of facilities, or the 
completion of improvements. The District goes through the Department of the State 
Architect (DSA) for hs plan review. This process takes approximately six to eight 
months. In addition to DSA. the District goes through a Department of Education 
(DEA) review (usually 1-2 months) and a review by the Office of Public School 
Construction (OPSC) review (2-3 months). The District is also required to plan the 
site development or improvement in advance of these reviews. This process, 
depending on the scope of the project, takes from 12-18 months. 

During this process, the District retains the services of a professional architect and all 
of the engineering trades (electrical, mechanical, geo-technical and structural) to 
complete the project plans and specifications. Tne District pays for all of these 
services and the design review as they are completed and in advance of State 
approval and funding and bidding approval. When this process is finished and the 
project is piaced out to bid, the District awards and funds the completion of the 
project through a general contractor. The typical construction project runs 12-18 
months. Considering the above information, the District had planned and prepared for 
bid a number of projects that were included within the bond proposal. When the 
bond passed, these projects were placed out to bid and awarded, to general contractors 
for construction. Tnese projects are currently under construction. 

3. As you know, the District intends to utilize bond proceeds, bond interest earnings, 
and all of its other sources of revenue to build facilities, modernize facilities, 
augment existing facilities, and complete seismic and technology infrastructure 
improvements throughout the City and County of San Francisco. Since the passage 
of the Proposition A on June 3, 1997. the District has proceeded with the planning, 
review and project application process with the State for seventeen (IT) District sites. 
These 1 7 projects are snared funding projects, meaning that the State will fund 80% 
(eighty) of the improvement project and the District will fund 20%. Tne total vaiue 
of the improvement work to be completed on the 1 7 sites is S49.642.466.00. The 
State's 80% share amounts to S39.7 13. 972.80 with the District's portion cquaiing 
S9.928.493 20. The District was anticipating the utilization of the interest earnings 
from the bond proceeds and other source funds to meet hs commitment on these 
projects. Without the use of these interest earnings from the bond proceeds the 
District will be unabie to proceed with the development of these projects. 



t70/20 - d L99S S59 Sic 2 * 3NIW*rW/S3IiniDtey CSr~S 2£:r>; SS6T-«T- 



Attachment il 
i'age 3 of 3 



September 1D, 1999 



Additionally, State fund grants are limited in both the amount and the duration of 
availability. If the District had been unabis to proceed with the development of these 
projects by February 1998, it was iikeiy that the District would have lost the State's 
commitment to fund its 80% share of 539.713,972.80. 



Thanks 
Tim Tronson 



22 

P0-^Z0'd 199S QP.q Ctfr 3NINNtHd/S3!ini3ty CSTsdS 3S:rt 655T-0T-= 



Memo to the Finance and Labor Committee 

September 15, 1999 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



Items 3 and 4 - Files 99-1490 and 99-1491 



Department: 
Item: 



Description: 



Department of Human Resources (DHR) 

File 99-1490: Ordinance adopting and implementing the 
provisions of the Amendment to the Memorandum of 
Understanding (MOU) between Teamsters, Local 856 and 
the City and Count}' of San Francisco for Supervising 
Nurses for the period July 1, 1998, through June 30, 2001, 
providing that all covered employees be placed into full 
retirement contribution status, effective July 1, 1998. 

File 99-1491: Ordinance adopting and implementing the 
provisions of the Amendment to the Memorandum of 
Understanding between SEIU, Local 790, and the City 
and County of San Francisco for Staff Nurses and Per 
Diem Nurses for the period July 1, 1997, through June 30, 
2000, providing that all covered employees be placed into 
full retirement contribution status effective July 1, 1998. 

On July 1, 1998, the City and County of San Francisco 
agreed to pay the full amount of the required employee 
contribution to the San Francisco Employee Retirement 
System (SFERS) on behalf of the Registered Nurses, 
which includes Supervising Nurses, Staff Nurses, and Per 
Diem Nurses, who are covered by the Memoranda of 
Understanding (MOU) between the City and the 
Teamsters, Local 856, and Service Employees 
International Union (SEIU), Local 790, in accordance 
with Administrative Code Section 16.16-1. 



When the City began paying the full amount of the 
required employee contribution to SFERS. not all 
Registered Nurses were fully included. In accordance 
with Administrative Code Section 16.61-1, the employee 
may make an individual choice as to whether the required 
employee contribution would be (a) a fuD pre-tax 
contribution, (b) a mixed pre-tax and after-tax 
contribution, or (c) a reduced contribution. Hovvever, 
Section 16.61-1 of the Administrative Code provides that 
MOUs may specify, under the mutual agreement of the 
bargaining unit and the City, that all covered employees 
who are members of SFERS will be placed into full pre- 



23 



Memo to the Finance and Labor Committee 

September 15, 1999 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

tax employee contribution status. At the time that the 
City began paying the full amount of the required 
employee contribution, the MOUs for the Registered 
Nurses were not amended to provide language to place all 
Registered Nurses covered by the MOUs into full pre-tax 
employee contribution status. Therefore, the City paid 
only a portion of the employee contribution for the 
Registered Nurses who had elected to be in mixed- 
contribution or reduced contribution status. 

Approval of the proposed ordinances would amend the 
MOUs between the City and County of San Francisco and 
the Teamsters, Local 856, and SEIU, 790, to provide 
language to place all covered employees into full pre-tax 
employee contribution status, effective July 1, 1998. 

Comments: 1. According to Ms. Clare Murphy of the San Francisco 

Employee Retirement System, the required employee 
contribution for an employee in full pre-tax employee 
contribution status is 8 percent of wages for Registered 
Nurses hired prior to November 1, 1976, and 7.5 percent 
of wages for Registered Nurses hired after November 1, - 
1976. 

2. Ms. Murphy reports that the City pays the employee 
contribution to SFERS on behalf of the Registered Nurse, 
as follows: 

Full pre-tax contribution. Since July 1, 1998, the City has 
paid the full pre-tax employee contribution on behalf of 
Registered Nurses who selected full retirement status, 
equal to either 7.5 percent or 8 percent of wages, 
depending on date of hire. Therefore, these Registered 
Nurses are not affected by the proposed amendments to 
the MOUs. 

Mixed contribution. Since July 1. 1998, the City has paid 
the pre-tax employee contribution, equal to either 1.3 
percent or 1.8 percent of Federal Old Age and Survivors 
Disability Insurance (OASDI) 1 wage?, depending on date 
of hire, on behalf of Registered Nurses who selected mixed 



1 Federal Old Age and survivors Disability Insurance (OASDI) wages for 1999 are annual wages up 
to S72.600. Annual wages above S72.600 are not OASDI wages. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

24 



Memo to the Finance and Labor Committee 

September 15, 1999 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



pre-tax/after-tax retirement status. In addition, 
Registered Nurses have paid an after-tax emplo}'ee 
contribution equal to 6.2 percent of OASDI wages and a 
full contribution equal to 7.5 percent or 8 percent, 
depending on date of hire, required for wages earned 
above the OASDI wage limit. Therefore, if the proposed 
amendments to the MOUs were adopted, the City would: 

(a) reimburse each Registered Nurse, who has chosen a 
mixed contribution, an amount equal to 6.2 percent of 
OASDI wages, for the period from July 1, 1998, until 
the date of adoption of the proposed resolution, and 

(b) place the Registered Nurse into full retirement 
status, effective on the date of adoption of the 
proposed resolution. 

Reduced contribution . Since July 1, 1998, the City has 
paid the pre-tax employee contribution, equal to either 1.3 
percent or 1.8 percent of OASDI wages, on behalf of 
Registered Nurses who selected reduced retirement 
status. However, neither Registered Nurses nor the City 
have paid the additional 6.2 percent contribution to 
SFERS that would equal a full employee contribution, 
The Registered Nurses have paid the required full 
contribution of 7.5 percent or 8 percent on all wages 
earned above the OASDI limit. If the proposed 
amendments to the MOUs were adopted, the City would: 

(a) pay SFERS the additional 6.2 percent pre-tax 
employee contribution on behalf of Registered 
Nurses, for the period from July 1, 1998, until the 
adoption of the proposed resolution, to bring the 
employee contribution up to full retirement status, 
and 

(b) place the Registered Nurse into full retirement 
status, effective on the date of adoption of the 
proposed resolution. 

3. Ms. Murphy states that 400 Registered Nurses have 
elected to pay mixed contributions and 110 Registered 
Nurses have elected to pay reduced contributions, for a 
total of 510 affected Registered Nurses. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

25 



Memo to the Finance and Labor Committee 

September 15, 1999 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



4. Ms. Alice Villagomez of the Human Resources 
Department advises that prior to July 1, 1998, the City 
was paying a portion of the employee contribution to 
SFERS on behalf of Registered Nurses, equal to 5 percent 
or 5.5 percent of wages, depending on date of hire. 
Beginning July 1, 1998, the City agreed to pay the full 
employee contribution to SFERS on behalf of Registered 
Nurses, equal to an additional 2.5 percent of wages. Ms. 
Villagomez states that it was the City's intention to place 
all Registered Nurses into full pre-tax employee 
contribution status at that time, including the Registered 
Nurses who had chosen to pay mixed or reduced employee 
contributions. 

5. The Controller estimates that the proposed 
amendments to the Memoranda of Understanding 
between Teamsters Local 856 and SEIU Local 790 will 
cost approximately $2,560,000 for the period from July 1. 
1998, through September 30, 1999. The ongoing annual 
cost of the proposed amendment is approximately 
$2,100,000, based on current Registered Nurse salary 
levels. According to the Controller, the additional costs to 
place the affected Registered Nurses into full retirement 
status were included in the Controller's original estimates 
of the incremental costs for the Nurses' MOUs as provided 
to the Board of Supervisors in June of 1997 when these 
MOUs were approved. In addition, such costs were 
included in the San Francisco General Hospital and 
Laguna Honda Hospital budgets for FY 1998-99 and FY 
1999-2000. Therefore, the proposed amendments 
represent no incremental costs over and above current 
expenditure appropriations. 



Recommendation: Approve the proposed ordinances. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

2A 



CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO OFFICE OF THE CONTROLLER 

Edward Harrington 
Controller 



September 10, 1999 



Ms. Gloria L. Young, Clerk of the 3oard 

Board of Supervisors 

City Hall, Room 244 

1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlea Place 

San Francisco, CA 94102 

RE: Amendments to the Memoranda of Understanding with SEIU Local 790 Staff & Per Diem Nurses and 
with Teamsters Local 856 Supervising Nurses, File Nos. 99-1490 and 99-1491 . 

Dear Ms. Young: 

In accordance with Ordinance 92-94, I am subrnhnng a cost analysis of amendments to the Memoranda of 
Understanding between the City and County of San Francisco and SEIU Local 790 Staff and Per Diem 
Nurses, and between the City and Teamsters Local 856 Supervising Nurses. Toe amgnHmrn: covers the 
period July 1, 1997 through June 30, 2000, and affects approximately 510 employees with a salary base of 
approximately S33.8 million. 

The amendment specifies that as of July 1, 1998, all members of these two bargaining units will be 
irrevocably placed into full retirement contribution starus. Based on our analysis, the amendment will 
result in costs of approximately S2.56 million for the period from July 1, 1998 through September 30, 
1999. Please note that these amounts were included in our original estimates of the incremental costs for 
the Nurses' MOUs as provided to the Board of Supervisors in June of 1997 when these MOUs were 
approved. 

If you have any additional questions or concerns please coniact me at 554-7500 or Peg Stevenson of my 
staff at 554-7522. 




ty Edward M Harrington 
Controller 



Alice Villagomez, ERD 
Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst 



415-354-7500 City Hall • 1 Dr. C-irlmn B. Goodtett Place • Room 316 • San Fraocnco C\ 94102-4694 



27 



Memo to Finance Committee 

September 15, 1999 Finance Committee Meeting 

Item 6 - File 99-1625 

The proposed ordinance would amend the previously approved Fiscal Year 
1999-2000 Annual Appropriation Ordinance (AAO) as a prerequisite to the levy of 
the Property Tax rate. The proposed ordinance would amend the Fiscal Year 1999- 
2000 AAO to increase previously appropriated funds in the amount of $119,144 to 
the Art Commission for the Municipal Symphony Orchestra (one-eighth of one cent 
per $100 of assessed valuation) as required by Charter Section 16.106(1). 

Comment 

The Fiscal Year 1999-2000 budget included $770,000 for the Art Commission 
expenditures for the Municipal Symphony Orchestra. The proposed ordinance would 
increase this appropriation by $119,144 to $889,144 for Fiscal Year 1999-2000. The 
proposed adjustment would have a net effect of decreasing the General Fund 
Reserve from $28,500,000 to $28,380,856. 

Recommendation 

Approve the proposed ordinance. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

28 



Memo to Finance Committee 

September 15, 1999 Finance Committee Meeting 

Items 7. 8. and 9 - Files 99-1626. 99-1627 and 99-1628 

The proposed ordinances would establish the Fiscal Year 1999-2000 Property 
Tax rates for the City and County of San Francisco including the Bay Area Air 
Quality Management District and the Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BARTD - 
File 99-1626), for the San Francisco Unified School District (File 99-1627) and for 
the San Francisco Community College District (File 99-1628). The Property Tax 
rate proposed for the City and County of San Francisco is $1.00 per $100 of assessed 
valuation which is the maximum allowable rate. The total Property Tax rate of 
$1,129 per $100 of assessed valuation for Fiscal Year 1999-2000 for all of the 
jurisdictions named above, as calculated by the Controller, includes bond interest 
and redemption charges. The proposed Fiscal Year 1999-2000 Property Tax rate of 
$1,129 is a decrease of $0,036 from the Fiscal Year 1998-99 Tax rate of $1,165. 

The Controller's Office reports that the net decrease in the Property Tax rate 
for Fiscal Year 1999-2000 reflects a number of factors, including elimination of the 
BARTD debt service requirement, reduction in the San Francisco Unified School 
District's debt service requirement, an increase in the value of property subject to 
taxation, and the use of surplus revenue from the City's debt service fund. The 
Controller adds that the surplus in the City's debt service fund is related to bonds 
that the City had planned but was unable to issue in Fiscal Year 1998-99 due to 
litigation, and from the realization of higher Property Tax revenues than originally 
estimated. 

The Fiscal Year 1998-99 approved Property Tax rates and the Fiscal Year 
1999-2000 proposed Property Tax rates are as follows: 





Approved 


Proposed 






Fiscal Year 


Fiscal Year 






1998-99 


1999-2000 


Increase 


Genera] Tax Rates 


Rates 


Rates 


(Decrease) 


Citv and Countv of San Francisco: 








General Fund 


0.57739620 


0.57739620 


- 


Children's Fund 


0.02500000 


0.02500000 


- 


Open Space Acquisition Fund 


0.02500000 


0.02500000 


- 


County Superint. of Schools 


0.00097335 


0.00097335 


- 


Library Preservation Fund 


0.02500000 


0.02500000 


- 


S.F. Unified School District 


0.28485725 


0.28485725 


- 


S.F. Community College District 


0.05336253 


0.05336253 


- 


Bay Area Air Quality Management 


0.00208539 


0.00208539 


- 


District 








Bay Area Rapid Transit District 


0.00632528 


0.00632528 


: 


Subtotal, General Fund Tax Rate 


S1.00 


SI. 00 


S0.00 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



29 



Memo to Finance Committee 

September 15, 1999 Finance Committee Meeting 

Property Tax Rates (Continued) 



General Tax Rates 

Rates for Bonded Indebtedness 

City and County of San Francisco 
S. F. Unified School Distnct 
Bay Area Rapid Transit District 
Subtotal, Bonded Indebtedness 

Total Combined Tax Rate 



Approved 


Proposed 




Fiscal Year 


Fiscal Year 




1998-99 


1999-2000 


Increase 


Rates 


Rates 


(Decrease) 



S 0.14493925 S 0.12766122 (S 0.01727803) 

0.00338075 0.00133878 (0.00204197) 

0.01668000 (0.01668000) 

S 0.165 SO. 129 S (0.036) 



$ 1.165 



S 1.129 



S (0.036) 



As compared with the current Fiscal Year 1998-99 Property Tax rate of 
$1,165, the Fiscal Year 1999-2000 proposed $1,129 Property Tax rate will have the 
following effect on a tax bill for a single family residence assessed at $400,000: 



Assessed Value 
Less Homeowners Exemption 
Total 



FY 1998-99 

$400,000 
7.000 
$393,000 divided by $100 x $1,165 = $4,578.45 

FY 1999-2000 



Assessed Value (1998-99) $400,000 

Add 1.85% ] Cost of Living Increase 7.400 

Subtotal $407,400 

Less Homeowners Exemption 7.000 

Total $400,400 divided bv $100 x $1.129 = $4.520.52 



Net Decrease in Property Tax Bill for Fiscal Year 1999-2000 



($57.93) 



As shown above, homeowners of a single family residence, assessed at 
$400,000, would experience a cost of living increase of 1.85 percent for Fiscal Year 
1999-2000 (under Proposition 13, the maximum allowable cost of living increase is 
two percent annually). In the example reflected above, the cost of living increase, 
combined with the decreased rate for bonded indebtedness, results in a Property 
Tax decrease of $57.93 for Fiscal Year 1999-2000 as compared to Fiscal Year 1998- 
99. 

Recommendation 

Approve the proposed ordinances. 



1 The maximum allowable cost of living increase under Article XIII B of the California Constitution is 
two percent. The State Board of Equalization has set the FY 1999-2000 cost of living increase at 1.85 
percent. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



30 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

September 15, 1999 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



Item 10 -File 99-1644 

Department: 

Item: 



Amount: 
Description: 



Mayor's Office of Public Finance 

Resolution (a) approving the form of, and authorizing the 
execution and delivery by the City and County of San 
Francisco of Equipment Lease Supplement No. 8, between 
the City and County of San Francisco Finance 
Corporation, as lessor, and the City and County of San 
Francisco, as lessee, with respect to equipment to be used 
for City purposes, and providing for the related Certificate 
of Approval and a continuing Disclosure Certificate; (b) 
approving the issuance of Series 1999A Lease Revenue 
Bonds by said nonprofit corporation in an amount not to 
exceed $9,800,000; (c) providing for reimbursement to the 
City of certain City expenditures incurred prior to the 
issuance of Series 1999A Lease Revenue Bonds; (d) 
providing for the execution of documents in connection 
therewith; and (e) ratifying actions previously taken. 

Not to exceed $9,800,000 

In June of 1990, San Francisco voters approved 
Proposition C, a Charter amendment which authorized 
the Board of Supervisors to authorize and approve the 
lease-financing of equipment purchases for the City 
through a nonprofit public benefit corporation, the San 
Francisco Finance Corporation. The equipment leased by 
the City is purchased by the San Francisco Finance 
Corporation with the proceeds of lease revenue bonds. 

According to Ms. Sarah Hollenbeck of the Mayor's Office 
of Public Finance, the City has issued lease revenue 
bonds for the procurement of equipment on an annual 
basis since FY 1990-91, with the exception of FY 1996-97 
when such issuance was delayed until the following fiscal 
year. The Mayor's Office is now requesting authorization 
to issue up to $9,800,000 in City and County of San 
Francisco Corporation Lease Revenue Bonds, Series 
1999A (hereafter referred to as "Series 1999A Lease 
Revenue Bonds"), for the acquisition, construction, and 
installation of equipment previously approved by the 
Board of Supervisors in the FY' 1999-2000 budget. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

31 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

September 15, 1999 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



Interest rates on lease revenue bonds issued by nonprofit 
corporations are generally lower than the interest on 
other financing instruments, because of the tax-exempt 
status of investments in non-profit corporations. 
Proposition C requires that the San Francisco Finance 
Corporation not issue lease revenue bonds for equipment 
purchase unless the Controller certifies that the interest 
costs to the City will be lower through the San Francisco 
Finance Corporation than through the other financing 
instruments such as third party vendors. Under the 
proposed resolution, the Controller is required to certify 
that the interest rates are lower through the San 
Francisco Finance Corporation prior to the sale of the 
proposed Series 1999A Lease Revenue Bonds. According 
to Ms. Peg Stevenson of the Controller's Office, the 
Controller has certified that the interest rates to the city 
would be lower through the San Francisco Financing 
Corporation than through other financing instruments 
(see Comment 5 below). 

In accordance with Proposition C, the total outstanding 
indebtedness of the San Francisco Finance Corporation 
may not exceed a principal amount of $20 million at any 
given time beginning in FY 1990-91, with the limit 
increasing by five percent in each subsequent fiscal year. 
The maximum amount of allowable indebtedness in FY 
1999-2000 is $31,026,564 according to Ms. Hollenbeck. 

The Board of Supervisors has previously authorized the 
issuance by the San Francisco Finance Corporation of up 
to $73,569,707 in lease revenue bonds, of which 
$67,315,000 was actually issued, to finance the purchase 
of equipment, as follows: 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

32 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

September 15, 1999 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 





Authorized 


Fiscal Year 


Lease 


Revenue Bonds 


1990-91 




S 7.304,707 


1991-92 


Up to 


10,000,000 


1992-93 


Up to 


10.200,000 


1993-94 


Up to 


7,000,000 


1994-95 


Up to 


6,500,000 


1995-96 


Up to 


7,065,000 


1996-97 







1997-98 


Up to 


14.000,000 


1998-99 


Up to 


11.500.000 



TOTAL Up to $73,569,707 

As noted above, the San Francisco Finance Corporation 
has been authorized to issue up to $73,569,707 since FY 
1990-91 in lease revenue bonds to procure equipment on 
behalf of the City. According to the Mayors Office of 
Public Finance, the actual amount of lease revenue bonds 
issued by the San Francisco Finance Corporation, the 
amounts which have been repaid, and the outstanding 
indebtedness as of October 1, 1999 will be as follows: 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

33 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

September 15, 1999 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



Series 1991 A Bonds 

Lease Purchase Revenue Bonds Issued $7,020,000 

Repayment to Date 7.020.000 

Outstanding Indebtedness: Series 1991A: | 

Series 1992A Bonds 

Lease Purchase Revenue Bonds Issued $5,555,000 

Repayment to Date 5,555.000 

Outstanding Indebtedness: Series 1992A: 

Series 1993A Bonds 

Lease Purchase Revenue Bonds Issued SI 0.200,000 

Repayment to Date 10.020.000 

Outstanding Indebtedness: Series 1993A: 180,000 

Series 1994 A Bonds 

Lease Purchase Revenue Bonds Issued S6. 850,000 

Repayment to Date 6,280.000 

Outstanding Indebtedness: Series 1994A: 570.000 

Series 1995A Bonds 

Lease Purchase Revenue Bonds Issued $6, 075, 000 

Repayment to Date 6.055,000 

Outstanding Indebtedness: Series 1995A: 20.000 

Series 1996A Bonds 

Lease Purchase Revenue Bonds Issued S7. 065. 000 

Repayment to Date 6,425,000 

Outstanding Indebtedness: Series 1996A: 640,000 

Series 1997A Bonds S13.715.000 

Lease Purchase Revenue Bonds Issued 4,320.000 

Payment to date 

Outstanding Indebtedness: Series 1997A: 9.395.000 

Series 1998A Bonds $10,835,000 

Lease Purchase Revenue Bonds Issued 1 490.000 

Payment to Date 

Outstanding Indebtedness: Series 1998A: 9.345.000 

Projected Total Outstanding Indebtedness at 

10/01/99 S20.150.000 

Total Allowable Indebtedness S3 1.026. 564 

Total Allowable Indebtedness Which Will Still 

Be Available at 10/01/99 S10.876.564 

For FY 1999-2000, Proposition C established $31,026,564 
as the maximum level of allowable indebtedness. As of 
October 1, 1999, it is projected that the amount of 
outstanding Proposition C indebtedness will be 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

34 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

September 15, 1999 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



$20,150,000, resulting in an available balance of 
$10,876,564 in unused debt capacity for equipment lease 
financing in FY 1999-2000. 

The proposed resolution would authorize the issuance of 
new Series 1999A Lease Revenue Bonds in FY 1999-2000 
in an amount not to exceed $9,800,000. This is within the 
San Francisco Finance Corporation's projected October 1, 
1999 unused debt capacity for equipment lease financing 
under Proposition C of $10,876,564 for FY 1999-2000. 
Ms. Hollenbeck estimates that the Series 1999A Lease 
Revenue Bonds will be sold on a competitive basis on 
October 20, 1999. 

According to Ms. Hollenbeck, the bond trustee for the San 
Francisco Finance Corporation will act as a bank for 
equipment purchases. Ms. Hollenbeck explains that 
various City departments have budgeted the annual lease 
payment within their FY 1999-2000 departmental 
budgets, as previously approved by the Board of 
Supervisors. Ms. Hollenbeck reports that the amount of 
the annual lease payments for the proposed Series 1999A 
Lease Revenue Bonds in FY 1999-2000 is approximately 
$174,000. This amount has been approved in the FY 
1999-2000 budget under the General City Responsibility 
budget. A total of $10,923,000, including principal of 
$9,595,000 and interest of $1,328,000, would be paid over 
the six year term of the leases for the equipment listed in 
the Attachment provided by Ms. Hollenbeck. Ms. 
Hollenbeck reports that, pending authorization of the 
proposed resolution, the San Francisco Finance 
Corporation will sell bonds to prospective investors and 
will subsequently purchase the equipment on behalf of 
the City using the proceeds from the lease revenue bond 
funds. City departments will then make annual lease 
payments to the San Francisco Finance Corporation, 
which in turn will use these funds to repay the lease 
revenue bond interest and redemption. 

In addition, the proposed resolution provides for (a) 
reimbursement to the City of up to $194,116 for bond 
issuance costs related to the proposed issuance of the 
Series 1999A Lease Revenue Bonds which have to be 
made prior to the actual date of issuance, (b) the 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

35 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

September 15, 1999 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

execution of documents needed to implement the proposed 
resolution, and (c) the ratification of actions previously 
taken. 

The annual budgets of City departments must include the 
amount of the City's annual lease-purchase payments 
(including principal and interest) for equipment procured 
through the San Francisco Finance Corporation. Since 
these payments are required under the terms of the lease- 
purchase agreement with the San Francisco Finance 
Corporation, the annual payments become fixed costs of 
City departments for the term of the lease revenue bond 
repayment period, once the equipment has been procured 
and acquired by the San Francisco Finance Corporation. 
As noted above, City departments will make lease 
payments to the San Francisco Financing Corporation, 
which in turn will use such funds to repay the bond funds. 

Comments: 1. The Attachment to this report, provided by Ms. 

Hollenbeck, contains a list of the equipment to be 
acquired, including (a) the applicable departments, (b) the 
number of units, and (c) the equipment costs, as 
previously approved by the Board of Supervisors in the 
FY 1999-2000 budget. As shown in the Attachment, total 
equipment costs are $8,005,943. 

The estimated total project costs of 59,595,000 in Series 
1999A Lease Revenue Bonds are as follows: 

Equipment Costs $8,005,943 

Required Reserve Fund 1 959,500 

Bond Issuance Costs 194.116 

Capitalized Interest 2 435.441 

TOTAL $9,595,000 



1 Lease Revenue bonds have a legally required Reserve Fund equal, in this case, to 10 percent of the 
principal amount of the bonds. 

2 Pursuant to State law, the City cannot make any interest payments on lease revenue bonds until 
the City has received the equipment. However, interest on the lease revenue bonds begins accruing 
when the bonds are sold regardless of when the equipment is eventually purchased and received by 
the City. Therefore, capitalized interest, estimated in the amount of S435.441. must be paid from 
proceeds of the Series 1999A Revenue Lease Bonds until such a tune as the equipment is actually 
received by the City and interest payments can be made from funds appropriated in the City budget. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

36 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

September 15. 1999 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



2. The actual interest costs to the City of the proposed 
equipment lease-purchases cannot be determined 
precisely, because the interest rate will depend on 
prevailing financial market interest rates when the Series 
1999A Lease Revenue Bonds are actually sold. Interest 
costs will also vary for each equipment item purchased 
based on the number of years in the repayment period for 
the item, which cannot exceed the useful life of the 
equipment. 

Ms. Hollenbeck estimates that, if the proposed Series 
1999A Lease Revenue Bonds are sold in a principal 
amount of approximately $9,595,000 at an estimated 
annual interest rate of 4.6 percent (based on current 
financial market interest rates), and if they are based on 
the expected repayment period of six years, the City's 
total principal and interest cost would be approximately 
$10,923,000 over the life of the Series 1999A Lease 
Revenue Bonds. Based on these estimates, as previously 
noted, the City's costs over the life of the Series 1999A 
Lease Revenue Bonds would be $9,595,000 in principal 
and $1,328,000 in interest costs, for a total cost of 
$10,923,000 over six years. 

3. The proposed resolution would provide for a 
Continuing Disclosure Agreement. According to Ms. 
Hollenbeck, Federal law requires all cities and counties 
which issue tax-exempt debt to file an Annual Report 
with a national repository for the benefit of the investors. 
The Annual Report would contain the following: (1) the 
financial statements of the San Francisco Financing 
Corporation and the City; (2) the status of the project: (3) 
a summary of budgeted General Fund revenues and 
appropriations; (4) a summary of assessed valuation of 
taxable property; and (5) a summary of outstanding and 
authorized but unissued tax supported debt. 

4. The use of lease financing is equivalent to borrowing 
funds, with resultant interest costs, to purchase 
equipment. Since such financing requires fixed, 
mandatory lease payments by City departments over 
several years, the use of lease-purchases "locks in" 
departmental expenditures for future years resulting in a 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

37 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

September 15, 1999 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



reduction in the amount of discretionary monies in the 
City's budget in future years. However, the Mayor's 
Office recommends the use of lease-financing with 
Proposition C bonds for the City's major equipment 
purchases in order to spread the equipment costs over 
several years, corresponding to the City's beneficial use of 
the equipment. 

5. Under the proposed resolution, the Controller is 
required to certify, prior to the sale of the proposed Series 
1999A Lease Revenue Bonds, that the interest rates are 
lower to the City through the San Francisco Finance 
Corporation than through other financing instruments. 
Ms. Peg Stevenson of the Controller's Office advises that 
the Controller reviewed the estimated interest rates for 
comparable equipment lease-financing that would be 
charged by various companies such as Ford Motor Credit, 
which would charge 5.25 percent annually for a 
comparable six year term of borrowing, and IBM. which 
would charge 5.39 percent annually for a six year term of 
borrowing. Based on that review, the Controller has 
certified in relation to the proposed Series 1999A Lease 
Revenue Bonds that if those bonds are sold on October 20, 
1999. the estimated 4.6 percent annual interest rate that 
would be charged by the San Francisco Finance 
Corporation for a six year term of borrowing for the 
subject equipment to be leased would be lower than the 
interest rates that the surveyed companies would charge. 

6. Based on the data reviewed, and in accordance with 
the Charter, as noted in Comment No. 5 above, the 
Controller has certified that the estimated interest rate of 
4.6 percent to be paid by the City would be lower through 
the San Francisco Financing Corporation than through 
other financing instruments. 



Recommendation: Approve the proposed resolution. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Attachment 



City and County of San Francisco Finance Corporation 
Series 1999A Equipment List 









#of 


Per Unit 




Department 




Equipment 


Units 


Cost 


Total Cost 


Administrative Services 




Cargo Van 




23,000 


23,000 


Administrative Services 




Passenger lift van 




35,000 


35.000 


Adult Probation 




Sedan-compact (CNG) 




22,000 


44.000 


Animal Care 




1 Ton outfitted van 




35,000 


35.000 


City Attorney 




Computer LAN Equipment 




273,901 


273,901 


San Francisco General Hospital 


Fluoroscan imanmc system 




69.105 


69.105 


San Francisco General Hospital 


BTE Pnmus work Simulator 




53,162 


53,152 


San Francisco Genera 


Hospital 


TEE Probe 




48,875 


48.875 


San Francisco General Hospital 


Automatic Coverslipper and Fume Controller 




33,092 


33.092 


San Francisco Genera 


Hospital 


Adult Ventilator 




30.380 


30.380 


San Francisco Genera 


Hospital 


Humphrey Visual Field Analyzer II 




29.591 


29.591 


San Francisco General Hospital 


Osteopower Modular Hanapiece 




21.728 


21 .728 


Medical Examiner 




1 Ton w/ lift van 




37,000 


37,000 


Medical Examiner 




Gas Generator 




45,000 


45,000 


Muni 




1 Ton w-' lift van 


2 


27,000 


54,000 


Muni 




Forklifts 


2 


27,000 


54,000 


Mum 




2-1/2 Ton scissor iruck v»'/ hyrailer for over power line repair 


2 


120.000 


240,000 


Muni 




Heavy duty currency collection van 


3 


30.000 


90.000 


Muni 




LRV jack & rerailer 


1 


75.000 


75.000 


Muni 




Cargo Van - outfitted 


2 


25.000 


50.000 


Muni 




LRV repair truck 25K GVWR 300hp diesel 


1 


110.000 


110.000 


Muni 




Overhead Line Maintenance Truck 


1 


240,000 


240.000 


Fire 




Van 


2 


24,500 


49.000 


Fire 




Ambulances 


3 


136,200 


408.600 


Fire 




Triple combination pumpers 


3 


255,978 


767,934 


Fire 




Mini pumpers 


1 


75.000 


76.000 


Fire 




Aerial ladder truck 


1 


458,315 


458,315 


Fire 




Mid-size sedan 


10 


21,000 


210,000 


Public Health 




Cisco catalyst 8500 & 5000 campus switch routers 


1 


140,000 


140.000 


Juvenile Probation 




Compact sedan (CNG) 


6 


22,000 


132,000 


Juvenile Probation 




Passenger van 


3 


26,500 


79.500 


Juvenile Probation 




Car w/ security cage 


1 


25,500 


25.500 


Public Defender 




Minivan 


1 


26,500 


26,500 


Police 




Sedans - marked 


40 


29,694 


1,187,760 


Police 




Sedans - unmarked 


50 


24.250 


1,212.500 


Parking & Traffic 




Three wheelers 


25 


17,500 


437,500 


Parking & Traffic 




1 Ton utility truck (signage repair) 


1 


45.000 


45.000 


Parking & Traffic 




1/2 Ton utility truck (painting) 


1 


22,000 


22.000 


Parking & Traffic 




1/2 Ton utility truck (signal repair) 


1 


35,000 


35.000 


Parking & Traffic 




1 1/2 Ton utility truck (meter repair) 


1 


23,000 


23.000 


Parking & Traffic 




Vans - outfitted 


5 


26,400 


132.000 


Parking & Traffic 




Midsize sedan (CNG) 


1 


24,000 


24.000 


Recreation & Park 




Garbage truck 


1 


140,000 


140.000 


Recreation & Park 




Rubber tire backhoe 


1 


78,000 


78,000 


Recreation & Park 




Ford F150 


1 


25.000 


25,000 


Recreation & Park 




3/4 Ton pick-up Truck 


1 


53.000 


53.000 


Recreation & Park 




3/4 Ton pick-up Truck 


1 


29.500 


29.500 


Recreation & Park 




3/4 Ton pick-up Truck 


1 


29.000 


29.000 


Recreation & Park 




3/4 Ton 4x4 pick-up truck 


1 


27,500 


27.500 


Recreation & Park 




1 Ton dump truck 


1 


20.000 


20.000 


Recreation & Park 




Dump truck 


2 


60.000 


120.000 


Recreation & Park 




2 3/4 pick-up truck 


1 


37.500 


37.500 


Telecommunications 




Compact car (CNG) 


2 


22.000 


44,000 


Telecommunications 




Wiring & telecom trucks 


3 


30.000 


90.000 


Telecommunications 




Wiring & telecom trucks 


1 


38.500 


38,500 


Telecommunications 




Wiring & telecom trucks 


1 


35.000 


35.000 


Telecommunications 




Grumen cable splicin 




55.000 


55.000 


8.005.943 



39 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

September 15, 1999 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



Item 11 -File 99-1579 
Department: 

Item: 

Amount: 
Source of Funds: 
Description: 



Budget: 



Public Utilities Commission (PUC) 
Department of Pubbc Works (DPW) 

Resolution approving the expenditure of funds for the 
emergency work to replace a structurally inadequate 
sewer on Polk Street from Washington Street to Clay 
Street. 

$120,366 

FY 1999-2000 PUC Repair and Replacement Fund 

On May 14, 1999, the Public Utilities Commission (PUC) 
Sewer Operations notified the Hydraulic Engineering 
Section of the DPW Bureau of Engineering that a live 
water main was broken. The resulting deluge damaged a 
manhole and approximately 40 feet of the existing 3 foot 
by 5 foot brick sewer near the intersection of Polk and 
Washington Streets. In addition, 285 feet of the existing 
brick sewer within the remainder of Polk Street from Clay 
to Washington Streets was determined to be structurally 
inadequate, and required immediate replacement to 
protect the health, welfare, and property of the citizens of 
San Francisco. On May 20, 1999 the PUC declared an 
emergency, and in accordance with Section 6.30 of the 
Administrative Code, the PUC initiated expedited 
contract procedures and awarded a contract to A. Ruiz 
Construction, Inc., in the amount of $109,382 to replace 
the structurally inadequate sewer. 

The total actual project cost was $120,366, including 
$93,216 in actual construction costs (or $16,166 less than 
the award amount, see Comment No. 2). 

A summary of the budget is as follows: 

DPW Bureau of Engineering $14,150 

DPW Bureau of Construction Management 13,000 

Construction Contract 93.216 

Total Project Cost $120,366 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

40 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

September 15, 1999 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



Comments: 



The Attachment provided by the DPW details the DPW 
Bureau of Engineering and Bureau of Construction 
Management costs. 

1. According to Mr. P.T. Law of DPW, the construction 
contract was awarded on a sole-source basis to A. Ruiz 
Construction, Inc., which was the contractor hired by the 
Water Department to repair the broken water main 
adjacent to the subject sewer. Mr. Law states that the 
sewer contract was awarded on a sole-source basis to A. 
Ruiz Construction, Inc., in order to avoid having two 
contractors at the site at the same time and to take 
advantage of A. Ruiz Construction, Inc.'s open trench at 
the intersection of Polk and Washington Street. 

2. Mr. Law reports that although the contract was 
awarded in the amount of $109,382, the final contract 
cost, after adjustment for actual quantities used during 
construction, was $93,216, or $16,166 less than the 
contract amount of $109,382. 



Recommendation: 



3. Mr. Law states that construction began on May 24, 
1999, and all work was completed on June 7. 1999. 

Approve the proposed resolution. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



41 



03/01/99 



13:22 SFDPUI BOE HYDRAULICS ^415 252 0461 



NO. 641 P01 

Attachment 
9/1/99 



Cost Breakdown for ( J.O. #1801N, Contract #CW-242E) 
Polk Street Sewer System Improvement 



Bureau of Engineering 



Classification 


Title 




=teie 


Hours 




Cost 


5504 


Project Manager II 


$ 


92 


8 


S 


736 


5206 


Associate Civil Engineer 


$ 


75 


25 


$ 


1,875 


5202 


Junior Civil Engineer 


S 


50 


71 


$ 


3,550 


5366 


Civil Engineering Associate II 


S 


60 


93 


$ 


5,580 


5381 


engineering Student Trainee II 


s 


33 


30 


$ 


990 


1426 


Secretary 


s 


43 


33 


$ 


1.419 



Rounded: 



14,150 

14,150 



Bureau of Construction Management 



Classification 


Title 


Rate 


Hours 




Cost 


5210 


Senior Civil Engineer 


$ 100 


6 


$ 


600 


5208 


Civil Engineer 


$ 80 


10 


$ 


800 


5204 


Assistant Civil Engineer 


$ 59 


85 


$ 


5,605 


631 B 


Construction Inspector 


$ 74 


81 


$ 


5,994 



Total 5 
Rounded: $ 



12^99 
13,000 



Post-it* Fax Note 



7671 )0 »g <?// Eg^2^t 



I^gs^Z 






42 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

September 15, 1999 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

Item 12 - File 99-1593 



Department: 
Item: 



Amount of Bond 
Issuance: 

Description: 



Mayor's Office of Housing 

Resolution authorizing the issuance, sale, and deliver} 7 of 
City and County of San Francisco Single Family Mortgage 
Revenue Refunding Bonds. Drawdown Series 1999, in an 
aggregate principal amount not to exceed $25,000,000; 
and authorizing the execution and delivery of a Trust 
Indenture and a Purchase Contract; providing for the 
execution of documents in connection therewith; and 
ratifying previous actions taken in connection therewith. 



Up to $25,000,000 

In May of 1981, the Board of Supervisors adopted 
Ordinance 245-81, which became Chapter 43 of the 
Administrative Code, entitled the Residential Mortgage 
Revenue Bond Law, authorizing the City to incur bonded 
indebtedness for the purpose of financing home 
mortgages. Since 1982, the City has issued $196,345,363 
in tax-exempt single family mortgage revenue bonds. 
These bonds have provided funds for below-market rate 
mortgages to first-time low and moderate income 
homebuyers. Since 1982, the program has assisted 
approximately 900 families to become homeowners in the 
City. Bondholders of the single family mortgage revenue 
bonds are paid from the repayments of these mortgages, 
which include both the scheduled principal payments of 
the mortgages and the mortgage payoffs when the home is 
refinanced or sold. 



Currently, the City is limited in its ability to issue new 
tax-exempt single family mortgage revenue bonds to 
finance additional single family home mortgages. The 
Internal Revenue Code permits each State to grant local 
governments within that State the authority to issue tax- 
exempt bonds, called private-activity bonds, to be used for 
private purposes, such as financing single family home 
mortgages. However, the Internal Revenue Code also 
places a statewide cap on the amount of tax-exempt 
private-activity bonds that local governments within a 
state can issue. At the present time, the California Debt 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 



A3 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

September 15, 1999 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



Limit Allocation Committee (CDLAC), the State of 
California agency which authorizes the amount of tax- 
exempt private-activity bonds which can be issued by 
Californian local governments, has rationed the amount 
of bonds issued on a per-capita basis statewide. Because 
of the Federally imposed statewide cap on private-activity 
bonds, and the CDLAC ration of private-activity bonds 
issued by Californian local governments, San Francisco is 
not able to issue new single family mortgage revenue 
bonds at this time. 

As an alternative to the issuance of new single family 
mortgage revenue bonds, the Internal Revenue Code 
permits the City to: 

(a) issue tax-exempt refunding bonds which would be used 
instead of the mortgage repayments to pay the 
bondholders of the original bonds: and 

(b) use the mortgage repayments, which would have been 
used to pay the bondholders of the original bonds in 
the absence of the refunding bonds, as a source of 
funds to finance new mortgages. 

Therefore, the proposed resolution would authorize the 
Mayor's Office of Housing to issue tax-exempt short-term 
Refunding Bonds and to use the proceeds from the 
Refunding Bonds to pay the bondholders of the original 
single family mortgage revenue bonds. By using the 
proceeds of the Refunding Bonds to pay the original 
bondholders, rather than using the mortgage repayments, 
the mortgage repayments become available as a source of 
funds to finance new single family home mortgages. 

However, for the mortgage repayments to become 
available as a source of funds to finance new single family 
home mortgages, the City would be required to (a) issue 
long-term Refunding Bonds, on or before April 1. 2003, 
which is the date when the short-term Refunding Bonds 
mature, and (b) use the proceeds of the long-term 
Refunding Bonds to pay the bondholders of the short-term 
Refunding Bonds (see Comment 6). 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

44 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

September 15, 1999 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

Approval of this resolution would authorize the City to 
issue Single Family Mortgage Revenue Refunding Bonds, 
Drawdown Series 1999, in an aggregate principal amount 
not to exceed $25,000,000. Such bonds would be first 
issued on October 1, 1999, and would mature no later 
than April 1, 2003, which is within 42 months. 

Comments: 1. According to Mr. Joe LaTorre of the Mayor's Office of 

Housing, of the $196,345,363 in single family mortgage 
revenue bonds that have been issued since 1982, the 
remaining outstanding balance is $23,837,657. 

2. Although the resolution would authorize the City to 
issue Single Family Mortgage Revenue Refunding Bonds 
in an amount up to $25,000,000, which is approximately 
equal to the outstanding balance of $23,837,657, Mr. 
LaTorre states that the Mayor's Office of Housing 
estimates that the amount of Refunding Bonds to be 
issued would be approximately $12,350,000, which is the 
expected amount of mortgage repayments that would 
accumulate, either through scheduled mortgage payments 
or through sale or refinancing of homes, prior to April 1, 
2003 1 . Proceeds from the estimated $12,350,000 in 
Refunding Bonds would be used to redeem $12,350,000 of 
the $23,837,657 in currently outstanding single family 
mortgage revenue bonds, which otherwise would have 
been paid by $12,350,000 in accumulated mortgage 
repayments. 

3. According to Mr. LaTorre, the Mayor's Office of 
Housing proposes that the Refunding Bonds would be 
issued, as follows: 

• The City would issue a Drawdown Series of short-term 
tax-exempt Single Family Mortgage Revenue 
Refunding Bonds in an amount of approximately 
$12,350,000 but no greater than $25,000,000. The 
Refunding Bonds would be issued in increments, or 
drawdowns, and the first increment would be issued 
on October 1, 1999, in the estimated amount of 



1 According to Mr. LaTorre, the Trust Indenture for the original single family mortgage revenue bonds provides that 
the original bonds would be redeemed when mortgages are paid-off, either through scheduled mortgage repayments 
(which coincides with the date of maturity of the original bond which financed the mortgage) or through the 
refinancing or sale of homes. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

45 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

September 15, 1999 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



$3,442,657, which is equal to the amount of the 
original single family mortgage bonds which mature 
on October 1. 1999 ($2,942,657), plus the estimated 
amount of mortgages which would be paid-off through 
refinancing or sale of homes by October 1, 1999 
($500,0(KM. 

• The City would use the proceeds of the sale of the 
Refunding Bonds in the amount of $3,442,657, rather 
than the accumulated mortgage repayments in the 
amount of $3,442,657, to pay off the bondholders of the 
original single family mortgage revenue bonds. 

• The City would place the accumulated mortgage 
repayments in the amount of $3,442,657, which 
otherwise would have been used to pay the 
bondholders of the original bonds on October 1, 1999, 
into an investment contract. 

Subsequent increments of the Drawdown Series of the 
Refunding Bonds, for a total amount of approximately 
$12,350,000 but no greater than $25,000,000, would be 
issued between October 1, 1999. and April 1, 2003, in the 
manner described above, and proceeds from the sale of the 
Refunding Bonds would be used to pay the bondholders of 
the original bonds when they mature. All the Refunding 
Bonds would mature on April 1, 2003. 

All mortgage repayments which would accumulate 
between October 1, 1999, and April 1. 2003, and which 
would otherwise have been used to pay the bondholders of 
the original bonds, would be placed into the investment 
contract. 

4. According to Mr. LaTorre, the purpose for issuing the 
short-term Refunding Bonds, which would mature within 
42 months, is as foDows: 

(a) The Mayors Office of Housing estimates that 
approximately $12,350,000 in mortgage repayments, 
which is the amount deemed sufficient to finance new 
single family home mortgages, would accumulate 
within that time period. Once sufficient mortgage 
repayment funds, totaling approximately 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

46 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

September 15, 1999 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



$12,350,000, have accumulated, the City would be 
able to use the funds to finance new home mortgages. 

(b) The issuance of short-term Refunding Bonds serves 
as a bridge to permit the City to accumulate 
mortgage repayments to be used a source of funds to 
finance new home mortgages. As stated above, the 
City would be required to issue long-term Refunding 
Bonds to pay the bondholders of the short-term 
Refunding Bonds, so that the accumulated mortgage 
repayments can be made available as a source of 
funds to finance new home mortgages. 

5. Mr. LaTorre reports that the short-term Refunding 
Bonds are interest-only bonds. Interest accrued on the 
accumulated mortgage repayments in the investment 
contract is estimated to be sufficient to service the debt of 
the short-term Refunding Bonds. Mr. LaTorre states that 
the City, which issued a Request for Proposal (RFP) for 
the purchase of the Refunding Bonds, has agreed to sell 
the Refunding Bonds to Merrill Lynch, subject to Board of 
Supervisors' approval of the proposed resolution, and that 
Merrill Lynch would receive interest payments on the 
Refunding Bonds equal to 80 percent of the one-month 
London Inter-Bank Rate (LIBOR). Mr. LaTorre advises 
that the estimated rate of return on the accumulated 
mortgage repayments in the investment contract would 
be 90 to 95 percent of LIBOR and that invested funds 
would earn sufficient interest to pay interest on the short- 
term Refunding Bonds. Any surplus in the interest which 
accrues on the accumulated mortgage repayments in the 
investment contract is positive arbitrage, and monies 
earned over and above the interest paid to the 
bondholders would be remitted to the U.S. Department of 
the Treasury, so that the bonds retain their tax-exempt 
status. 

6. Mr. LaTorre states that the City would need to issue 
long-term tax-exempt Refunding Bonds, subject to Board 
of Supervisors' approval, on or before April 1, 2003, to 
redeem the subject short-term Refunding Bonds. Without 
issuance of the long-term Refunding Bonds to redeem the 
subject short-term Refunding Bonds, the City would need 
to use the mortgage repayments which have accumulated 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

47 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

September 15, 1999 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



in the investment contract to redeem the short-term 
Refunding Bonds. By issuing long-term Refunding Bonds 
to redeem the short-term Refunding Bonds, the mortgage 
repayments which have been held in the investment 
contract become available as a source of funds to finance 
new home mortgages. 

7. Mr. LaTorre reports that the estimated bond issuance 
costs, for issuing all increments of Drawdown Series 1999, 
would be $75,000, and that these costs would be paid from 
funds that are recovered when the 1982 single family 
revenue mortgage revenue bonds mature on October 1, 
1999. 

8. Mr. Dave Sanchez of the City Attorneys Office advises 
that, in accordance with Charter Section 9.107(3), the 
subject Refunding Bonds would not have to be issued at a 
lower interest rate than the original single family 
mortgage revenue bonds, because the bonds were issued 
for the purpose of establishing a fund to finance home 
mortgages. According to Mr. LaTorre, the purpose for 
issuing the subject Refunding Bonds is that: 

(a) the City is unable to issue new single family mortgage 
revenue bonds for the purpose of financing new home 
mortgages at this time because the Federal 
government has imposed a cap on the issuance of new 
single family mortgage revenue bonds, and 

(b) by issuing the short-term Refunding Bonds and using 
the proceeds to redeem the original single family 
mortgage revenue bonds, the City would be able to use 
the approximate $12,350,000 in accumulated mortgage 
payments held in the investment contract, which 
otherwise would have been used to redeem the original 
single family mortgage revenue bonds, as a source of 
funds to finance an estimated 75 to 100 new home 
mortgages. 

9. As explained in the attached memorandum from Mr. 
LaTorre, the short-term interest-only Refunding Bonds 
that would be authorized by approval of the proposed 
resolution would mature on or before April 1, 2003. at 
which time the redemption of such bonds would require 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

48 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

September 15, 1999 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



either (a) payment of the funds accumulated in the 
investment contract to the short-term bondholder, or (b) 
issuance of long-term Refunding Bonds. According to Mr. 
LaTorre, debt service for the long-term Refunding Bonds 
would be paid from future mortgage repayment revenues, 
and mortgage interest rates would be set at a level 
sufficient to pay the debt service of the long-term 
Refunding Bonds. Also, as explained in Mr. LaTorre's 
attached memorandum, although the issuance of the 
proposed Refunding Bonds to redeem the single family 
mortgage revenue bonds would not result in interest 
savings to the City, the subject Refunding Bonds would be 
revenue neutral because (a) the expected rate of return on 
the mortgage repayments held in the investment contract 
is sufficient to cover interest payments on the short-term 
Refunding Bonds, and (b) the bondholder of the short- 
term Refunding Bonds has no legal claim on the City for 
repayment of the Bonds. 



Recommendation: 



10. According to Mr. Sanchez, the City has no legal 
obligation to pay bondholders of either the original single 
family mortgage revenue bonds or the subject Refunding 
Bonds. As previously noted, bondholders are to be paid 
from the mortgage repayments, which include both the 
scheduled principal payments of the mortgages and the 
mortgage payoffs when homes are refinanced or sold. 

Approval of the proposed resolution is a policy matter for 
the Board of Supervisors. 




Harvey M. Rose 



^ 



cc: Supervisor Yee 

Supervisor Bierman 
President Ammiano 
Supervisor Becerril 
Supervisor Brown 
Supervisor Katz 
Supervisor Kaufman 
Supervisor Leno 
Supervisor Newsom 



Supervisor Teng 
Supervisor Yaki 
Clerk of the Board 
Controller 
Legislative Analyst 
Matthew Hymel 
Stephen Kawa 
Ted Lakey 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 



49 



MAYORS OFFICE OF HOUSING 

Cm' AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 



Attachment 
Page 1 of 2 




WILLIE LEWIS BROWN. JR. 

MAYOR 



Marcia Rosen 
DIRECTOR 



MEMORANDUM 

September 9, 1999 

To: Severin Campbell, Budget Analyst 

From: Joe LaTorre. Planning and Monitoring Director 

Subject: Single Family Mortgage Revenue Refunding Bonds (File No. 99-1593) 

You have asked me to describe (a) whether the above referenced refunding bonds will result in 
an interest savings to the City, (b) whether the bond refunding is revenue neutral, and (c) the 
benefit to the City of issuing the long-term refunding bonds in the future. 

(a) The refunding will not result in an interest savings to the City, because the interest rate on 
the bonds is in fact a function of the interest rate on the mortgages which are financed by 
the bonds. At the time the original bonds were issued (1982. 1986. 1990 and 1994) the 
City set the mortgage interest rate at a level which would ensure repayment of principal 
and interest on the bonds. The rate of interest on the bonds, of course, was a function of 
the market for tax-exempt financing. Because mortgage interest rates are. in general, 
related to overall interest rates in the economy, the City was able to offer mortgages to 
first time homebuyers at interest rates from 1-1 '2 to 2 percent lower than prevailing 
mortgage rates. 

The primary purpose of the refunding is to warehouse the repayments under prior bonds 
in order to permit (at the time of the long-term refunding in 2002 or 2003) the City to 
issue new first time homebuyer mortgages. It is anticipated that the interest rate on those 
mortgages will in fact be lower than the rate on the mortgages originally funded in 1982- 
94, since prevailing interest rates are lower today than during most of that period. If the 
bonds were issued today, the mortgage interest rate would probably be about 6.5" o. 
compared to interest rates ranging from 7.15% to 10.75% on mortgages from the earlier 
bonds. 

(b) The bonds are revenue neutral for the City for two reasons. The interest rate on the 
refunding bonds is 80% of the one-month London Inter-Bank Rate (LIBOR). Since the 
funds held by the bond trustee will be invested in an investment agreement at an interest 
rate approximately 90-95% of LIBOR, the invested funds will earn sufficient interest to 
more than cover the bond interest. Because the surplus is positive arbitrage, any monies 
earned over and above the interest paid to bondholders will be remitted to the U.S. 
Department of the Treasury so that the bonds will retain their tax-exempt status. In 



25 Van Ness Avenue. Suite 600* San Francisco. California 94102 • (415)252-3177 • FAX (415) 252-3140 • TDD (415) 252-3107 

50 



tt. L LdULllllCLl L. 



Page 2 or 2 
Addressee 
Date 
Page 2 
addition, because the bonds are not full faith and credit obligations of the City, the 
bondholder has no claim against any source of repayment other than the investment 
agreement. 

(c) After the City has accumulated sufficient funds in the investment agreement to make a 

new single-family bond issuance cost-effective (approximately S10 million is necessary), 
and not later than 2003, the Mayor's Office of Housing will seek approval to issue long- 
term Single Family Mortgage Revenue Refunding Bonds to pay off the short-term bonds. 
Funds in the investment agreement will be transferred to the new Bond trustee, and will 
be lent to low and moderate income first time homebuyers as described in our earlier 
memo. The mortgages (or possibly mortgage-backed securities from those mortgages) 
will be held by the new Bond trustee as collateral for the new Bonds. The mortgage 
principal and interest payments will be structured to pay all bond principal and interest 
payments for the life of the new Bonds, as with any single family mortgage revenue 
bond. If, for any reason, the issuance of the new Bonds is not feasible or is not approved, 
the funds in the investment agreement will be used to defease the short-term Bonds, and 
no new mortgage program would be established. 



51 




City and County of $an Francisco city Han 

1 Dr. Carlton B 

Meeting Minutes Goodum piace 

_,. _ _ J 8 ' San Francisco, CA 

finance and Labor Committee 94102^68° 

Members: Supervisors Leland Yee, Sue Bierman and Tom Ammiano 
Clerk: Mary Red 



Wednesday, September 22, 1999 10:00 AM City Hall, Room 263 

Regular Meeting 

Members Present: Leland Y. Yee, Tom Ammiano. 
Members Absent: Sue Bierman. 



Meeting Convened ^^ 

DOCUMENTS DEPT. 

The meeting convened at 10:05 a.m. 

SEP 2 7 19S3 
REGULAR AGENDA SAN F r ANC |SCO 

PUBLIC LIBRARY 

990624 (Healthy Air and Smog Prevention) 

Supervisors Ammiano, Becerril, Bierman, Katz, Leno, Newsom, Yaki 

Ordinance amending Administrative Code by adding a new Chapter 85, Sections 85.1 through 85.10, 
establishing a Clean Air Program within the Department of Administrative Services, establishing a Clean Air 
Advisory Committee, establishing a program to develop infrastructures for alternative fuel vehicles, 
establishing criteria for the City's procurement of zero-emission and ultra-low emission vehicles, and 
encouraging private and regional public entities doing business in San Francisco to use ultra-low and cleaner 
emission vehicles; amending Traffic Code by adding Section 32.21 A to prohibit parking by non-electric 
vehicles in electric vehicle charging bays; amending traffic code Section 32.22 to provide the authority to 
remove non-electric vehicles in electric vehicle charging bays. 

(Adds Administrative Code Sections 85.1 through 85.10; adds Traffic Code Section 32. 21 A; amends Section 

32.22.) 

4/5/99, ASSIGNED UNDER 30 DAY RULE to Public Health and Environment Committee, expires on 5/5/1999. 

8/1 1/99, TRANSFERRED to Finance and Labor Committee. Request it be considered at the August 18, 1999 meeting. 

Heard in Committee Speakers: Supervisor Ammiano; Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst; William Chin, Deputy- 
City Attorney; Rick Ruvulo, Department of Administrative Services; Dave Cowley, Superintendent of Shops, 
Purchasing Department; Rajiv Bhatia, M.D., Department of Public Health. In Support: Tom Addison, Bay 
Area Air Quality Management District; Anastasia Yovanopoulos, Noe Valley; Candace Morey, Union of 
Concerned Scientists; Karen Licavoli, American Lung Association; John Holtzclaw, Sierra Club. 
AMENDED, AN AMENDMENT OF THE WHOLE BEARING NEW TITLE. 



City and County of Sun Francisco I Printed at 2:33 PM on 9/23SV9 



Finance and Labor Committee Meeting Minutes September 22, 1999 

Ordinance amending Administrative Code by adding a new Chapter 85, Sections 85 1 through 85 10, 
establishing a Clean Air Program within the Department of Administrative Services, establishing a Clean Air 
Advisory Committee, establishing a program to develop infrastructures for alternative fuel vehicles, 
establishing criteria for the City's procurement of zero-emission and ultra-low emission vehicles, establishing 
an alternative fuel vehicle purchasing pilot program in the Department of Public Transportation, identifying 
disel buslines that are appropriate for conversion to electric trolley buslines; establishing a car share program, 
and encouraging private and regional public entities doing business in San Francisco to use ultra-low and 
cleaner emission vehicles; amending Traffic Code by adding Section 32.21 A to prohibit parking by non- 
electric vehicles in electric vehicle charging bays; amending Traffic Code Section 32 22 to provide the 
authority to remove non-electric vehicles in electric vehicle charging bays. 

(Adds Administrative Code Sections 85.1 through 85.10; adds Traffic Code Section 32 21 A, amends Section 

32.22.) 

RECOMMENDED AS AMENDED by the following vote: 
Ayes: 2 - Yee, Ammiano 
Absent: 1 - Bierman 



991561 |MBE/WBE/LBE Program| 
Supervisor Yee 

Hearing to consider the June 1, 1999 Quarterly Report to the Mayor and the Board of Supervisors on Chapter 

12D of the San Francisco Administrative Code - the 1997-1999 Investigation Into Minority /Women Business 

Participation in City Contracting. 

8/9/99, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance and Labor Committee 

9/15/99, CONTINUED Heard in Committee Speakers Supervisor Yee, Beth Arron, Ed Tong. Asian. Inc . Bill Greene, Willie 

Ratclifte; Ena Aguirre. Oren Sellstrom, Lawyer's Guild; Jack Williams. Agar Jakes Connnued to September 22. 1999 

Heard in Committee Speakers: Marivic Bamba. Executive Director. Human Rights Commission, Douglas 
Wong, Executive Director, Port of SF, Sandra Crumpler, Airport Commission. Harlan Kelly, Department of 
Public Works, Arnold Baker, Deputy General Manager, Municipal Railway, Ed Harrington. Controller. 
Supervisor Yee; Kathy Perry; Louise Vaughn, Aaron Yee. Asian, Inc , Sam Quan. Ted Lakey, Deputy City 
Attorney; Virginia Harmon, contract compliance. Human Rights Commission, Supervisor Ammiano 
CONTINUED TO CALL OF THE CHAIR by the following vote: 

Ayes: 2 - Yee, Ammiano 

Absent: 1 - Bierman 



991502 (Reporting Requirements of City Construction Contractors! 
Supervisors Ammiano, Katz, Bierman 

Ordinance amending Administrative Code Section 6.40 to require contractors for public works or 
improvement projects to provide data regarding their employment and personnel praences and the 
employment and personnel practices of theu subcontractors, and to establish sanchons to be imposed on 
contractors for any failure to comply with these reporting requirements. 

(Amends Section 6.40.) 

8/2/99, ASSIGNED UNDER 30 DAY RULE to Finance and Labor Committee, expires on 9/1/1999 9/21 '99 - Supervisor Leno requested 

his name be removed as co-sponsor 

Heard in Committee Speakers: Harvey Rose. Budget Analyst; Virginia Harmon, contract compliance. 
Human Rights Commission; Supervisor Yee; Marivic Bamba. Executive Director. Human Rights Commission. 
Supervisor Ammiano. 
CONTINUED TO CALL OF THE CHAIR by the following vote: 

Ayes: 2 - Yee, Ammiano 
Absent: 1 - Bierman 



Cory and County of San Francisco 2 Printed at 2:33 PM on 9 r.f W 



Finance and Labor Committee 



Meeting Minutes 



September 22, 1999 



991503 [Declaring Contractors and Subcontractors Irresponsible Bidders) 
Supervisors Leno, Ammiano, Katz, Bierman 

Ordinance amending Administrative Code Section 12B.2 to authorize the Director of the Human Rights 
Commission to declare contractors and subcontractors who violate the nondiscrimination provisions of city 
contracts as irresponsible bidders as to future contracts and property contracts, to impose sanctions on such 
contractors and subcontractors, and to make nonsubstantive clerical revisions. 

(Amends Section 12B.2.) 

8/2/99, ASSIGNED UNDER 30 DAY RULE to Finance and Labor Committee, expires on 9/1/1999. 

Heard in Committee. Speakers: Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst; Virginia Harmon, contract compliance. 

Human Rights Commission; Supervisor Yee; Marivic Bamba, Executive Director, Human Rights Commission, 

Supervisor Ammiano. 

CONTINUED TO CALL OF THE CHAIR by the following vote: 

Ayes: 2 - Yee, Ammiano 

Absent: 1 - Bierman 



991573 [Appropriation of Bond funds for construction projects at the Community College District) 

Ordinance appropriating $20,392,637, San Francisco Community College District, of Educational Facility 
Bond proceeds for the acquisition and construction of educational facilities (buildings, structures and 
improvements) for fiscal year 1999-2000. (Controller) 

(Fiscal impact.) 

8/1 1/99, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance and Labor Committee. 

Heard in Committee. Speakers: Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst; Dr. Phillip Day, Chancellor, City College of 

San Francisco; Ted Lakey, Deputy City Attorney; Supervisor Yee; Supervisor Ammiano. Oppose: Anastasia 

Yovanopoulos. 

AMENDED, AN AMENDMENT OF THE WHOLE BEARING NEW TITLE. 

Ordinance appropriating $20,460,150, San Francisco Community College District, of Educational Facility 
Bond proceeds for the acquisition and construction of educational facilities (buildings, structures and 
improvements) for fiscal year 1999-2000. (Controller) 

(Fiscal impact.) 

Continued as amended to October 6, 1999. 

CONTINUED by the following vote: 

Ayes: 2 - Yee, Ammiano 
Absent: 1 - Bierman 



City and County of San Francisco 



Printed at 2:33 P» on 9/2XV9 



Finance and Labor Committee 



Meeting Minutes 



September 22, 1999 



991644 |1999 Finance Corporation Equipment Lease] 
Mayor 

Resolution approving the form of and authorizing execution and delivery by the City and County of San 
Francisco of an Equipment Lease Supplement No. 8 between the City and County of San Francisco Finance 
Corporation, as lessor, and the City and County of San Francisco, as lessee, with respect to equipment to be 
used for City purposes, a related certificate of approval and a continuing disclosure certificate; approving the 
issuance of Lease Revenue Bonds by said nonprofit corporation in an amount not to exceed $9,800,000; 
providing for reimbursement to the City of certain City expenditures incurred prior to the issuance of Lease 
Revenue Bonds; and approving for the execunon of documents in connection therewith and ratifying previous 
actions taken in connection therewith. 

(Fiscal impact.) 

8/23/99, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance and Labor Committee 

9/15/99, CONTINUED Continued to September 22, 1999 

Continued to September 29, 1999 
CONTINUED by the following vote: 

Ayes: 2 - Yee, Ammiano 

Absent: 1 - Bierman 



991581 |Sewer Replacement, Broadway Street] 

Resolution approving the expenditure of funds for the emergency work to replace the structurally inadequate 

sewer on Broadway from Pierce Street to Scott Street - $148,925 (Public Utilities Commission) 

8/12/99, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance and Labor Committee 

Heard in Committee Speakers Harvey Rose. Budget Analyst, Norman Chan, Department of Public Works. 

Supervisor Yee. 

RECOMMENDED by the following vote: 

Ayes: 2 - Yee, Ammiano 

Absent: 1 - Bierman 



991582 [Reserved Funds, Port Commission] 

Hearing to consider release of reserved funds, Port Commission (San Francisco Harbor operating loan 

proceeds from the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, Ordinance 252-97), in the amount of $25,500 to 

fund the fire main and engineering services at Pier 50 Sheds A, B, and C. (Port) 

8/13/99, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance and Labor Committee 

Heard in Committee. Speakers. Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst: Alex Lee, S F Port 

APPROVED AND FILED by the following vote: 

Ayes: 2 - Yee, Ammiano 

Absent: 1 - Bierman 



991617 [Establishing San Francisco's 1999-2000 Appropriations Limit| 

Resolution establishing the appropriations limit for fiscal year 1999-2000 pursuant to California Constitunon 

Article XIII B. (Controller) 

8/17/99, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance and Labor Committee 

Heard in Committee. Speakers Harvey Rose. Budget Analyst: Ed Harrington. Controller. 

RECOMMENDED by the following vote: 

Ayes: 2 - Yee, Ammiano 

Absent: 1 - Bierman 



City and County of San Francisco 



Printed at 2:33 PM on 9 13 *« 



Finance and Labor Committee 



Meeting Minutes 



September 22, 1999 



991429 [Single Room Occupancy (SRO) Hotel Fire Prevention and Stabilization Task Force] 
Supervisors Ammiano, Katz. Bierman 

Resolution establishing a Single Room Occupancy (SRO) Hotel Fire Prevention and Stabilization Task Force 
to make recommendations to the Mayor and the Board of Supervisors and setting forth the membership and 
duties of the task force. 

7/19/99, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Housing and Social Policy Committee 

8/3/99, CONTINUED TO CALL OF THE CHAIR. Heard in Committee Speakers: Jakkee Bryson, Kim Strieker 
8/25/99, TRANSFERRED to Finance and Labor Committee. 

Heard in Committee. Speakers: Supervisor Ammiano, Ann Kronenberg, Department of Public Health. In 
Support: Emanual Smith, Jr., Tenants Union; Amy Fishman, MHDC; Anastasia Yovanopoulos, S.F Tenants 
Union; Chris Daly. Neither: Roberta Caravelli, Citizens Review. 
AMENDED, AN AMENDMENT OF THE WHOLE BEARING NEW TITLE. 

Resolution establishing a Single Room Occupancy (SRO) Hotel Safety and Stabilization Task Force to make 
recommendations to the Mayor and the Board of Supervisors and setting forth the membership and duties of 
the task force. 
RECOMMENDED AS AMENDED by the following vote: 

Ayes: 2 - Yee, Ammiano 

Absent: 1 - Bierman 



991378 [HOPE VI Tenant Protection] 
Supervisor Ammiano 

Hearing to consider the creation of a tenant protection act for the purpose of safeguarding the rights of 
residents at H.O.P.E. VI public housing sites and preserving low-income units. 
7/12/99, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance and Labor Committee. 

Heard in Committee. Speakers: Supervisor Ammiano; Joyce Miller, Family Rights and Dignity; Ronnie 
Davis, Executive Director, Housing Authority; Alma Lark, North Beach; Giovanni Catalan, Valancia 
Gardens; James Tracy, Eviction Defense Network; LaTara Reed, Alice Griffin; Walter Cidlowski, Tenderloin, 
Vivian Harris, Homeless Prenatal Program (HPP); Ramona Benson, HPP; Shah Sagi, HPP; Roger Strobel, 
Telegraph Hill Dwellers Association; Ms. Martinez; Carta Robins, HPP; Rebecca Vilkomerson, HPP; Greg 
Richardson, North Beach Tenant Consultant; Jeri Maxwell, President, Valencia Garden Council; Louise 
Vaughn; Nancy Frappier, HPP; Cecilia Sheppard, Hayes Valley. 
CONTINUED TO CALL OF THE CHAIR by the following vote: 

Ayes: 2 - Ammiano, Yee 

Absent: 1 - Bierman 



ADJOURNMENT 

The meeting adjourned at 1:00 P M. 



City and County of San Francisco 



Printed at 2:33 PM on 9/71V9 



Public Library,Gov't Info. Ctr., 5 th Fir. 
Attn: Susan Horn 






CITY AND COUNTY 




OF SAN FRANCISCO 



rSA 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 



BUDGET ANALYST 

1390 Market Street, Suite 1025, San Francisco, CA 94102 (415) 554-7642 

FAX (415) 252-0461 



DOCUMENTS DEPT. 

SEP 2 1 1999 

SAN FRANCISCO 
PUBLIC LIBRARY 



September 17, 1999 
TO: finance and Labor Committee 

FROM: .Budget Analyst 

SUBJECT: ^September 22, 1999 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 
Item 1 - File 99-0624 



Departments: 



Item: 



Department of Administrative Services (DAS) 

Planning Department 

Department of Building Inspection (DBI) 

Department of Parking and Traffic (DPT) 

San Francisco Transportation Authority 

Police Department (SFPD) 

Public Transportation Department (PTD) 

Ordinance (1) amending Part I of the San Francisco 
Municipal Code (Administrative Code) by adding Chapter 
85 to establish (a) a Clean Air Program within the 
Department of Administrative Services, (b) a Clean Air 
Advisory Committee, (c) a program to develop City 
infrastructures for alternative fuel vehicles, (d) criteria for 
the City's procurement of ultra-low and zero emission 
vehicles and (e) a Alternative Fuels Pilot Program; (2) 
encouraging private and regional entities conducting 
business in the City to use ultra-low and zero emission 
vehicles; (3) amending Part II, Chapter XI of the San 
Francisco Municipal Code (Traffic Code) by adding 
Section 32.21 A to prohibit parking by non-electric 
vehicles in electric vehicle charging bays, and amending 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

September 22, 1999 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

Section 32.22 to provide the authority for the Police 
Department and the Department of Parking and Traffic 
to remove non-electric vehicles in electric vehicle charging 
bays. 

Description: The proposed ordinance would amend Part I of the San 

Francisco Municipal Code (Administrative Code) to add 
Chapter 85, a new chapter. Chapter 85 would establish: 

(a) Clean Air Program 

Mr. Rick Ruvolo of the Department of Administrative 
Services (DAS) reports that DAS has administered the 
City's Clean Air Program since 1993. However, according 
to Mr. Ruvolo, the City's Administrative Code has not yet 
been amended to establish the Clean Air Program within 
the Department of Administrative Services. Attachment 
I is a memorandum, provided by Mr. Ruvolo, which 
explains the differences between the City's FY 1998-1999 
Clean Air Program budget of $359,687 and the FY 1999- 
2000 Clean Air Program budget of $503,948, which was 
previously approved by the Board of Supervisors. As 
explained in Attachment I, two new positions (1.25 FTE) 
were approved in the DAS FY' 1999-2000 budget for the 
Clean Air Program. Mr. Ruvolo states that the primary 
goals of the City's proposed Clean Air Program would be 
to support the use of ultra-low and zero emission vehicles 
and to develop City programs to reduce emissions from 
vehicles owned by private and public entities. 

(b) Clean Air Advisory Committee 

A 12-member Clean Air Advisory Committee, consisting 
of eight representatives from various City departments 
(appointed by their respective department heads) and four 
representatives from environmental organizations and 
the public (appointed by the Board of Supervisors), would 
advise the Board of Supervisors in matters related to the 
reduction of air pollution in the City, including the 
purchase of ultra-low and zero emission vehicles and the 
development of City infrastructures to support the use of 
such vehicles. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

2 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

September 22, 1999 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



(c) Infrastructure Development for Alternative Fuel 
Vehicles 

Not later than 18 months from the effective date of the 
proposed ordinance, the following actions would be taken: 

The Planning Department, in cooperation with the 
Department of Building Inspection, would coordinate the 
siting and development of at least five public access 
natural gas fast fueling stations throughout the City. 

The Department of Parking and Traffic, in consultation 
with Department of Building Inspection, would 
implement a pilot program to install a total of 50 public 
access electric charging bays in at least six City-owned 
garages, parking lots and/or other sites accessible to the 
public. 

(d) Procurement Criteria for Ultra-Low and Zero 
Emission Vehicles and Motorized Alternative Fuel 
Equipment 

Beginning 90 daj r s from the effective date of the proposed 
ordinance, all City departments would be required to 
purchase or lease only (1) passenger vehicles and light 
duty trucks that are rated as ultra-low and zero emission 
vehicles, (2) medium duty vehicles with engines that are 
rated as ultra-low or super ultra-low emission engines, 
and (3) heavy duty vehicles with engines that are certified 
under the optional standards for their exhaust emissions 
as established by the California Air Resources Board. 

In addition, beginning July 1, 2000, at least 10 percent of 
the passenger vehicles and light duty trucks purchased or 
leased by the City must be zero emission vehicles. 

The above-noted emission requirements would not apply 
to any motor vehicles that are used for public safety 
purposes such as police vehicles, fire vehicles, ambulances 
and other emergency vehicles or to the acquisition of 
buses by the Public Transportation Department for the 
Municipal Railway. In addition, the Director of the 
Department of Administrative Sendees would be 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

3 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

September 22, 1999 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



authorized to grant an exemption from these emission 
requirements to other City departments in cases wherein: 

• No model of motor vehicle or motorized equipment is 
available which would comply with the proposed 
emission requirements and meet its intended use by a 
City department; and/or 

• A City department demonstrates each of the following: 
(1) the initial cost of a ultra-low and zero emission 
motor vehicle or motorized equipment is more than 
one and a half times the cost of a motor vehicle or 
motorized equipment powered by gasoline or diesel 
fuel, (2) non-General Fund monies are not available 
for the purchase or lease of a ultra-low and zero 
emission motor vehicle or motorized equipment, and 
(3) the cost differential between a ultra-low or zero 
emission motor vehicle or motorized equipment and a 
motor vehicle or motorized equipment powered by 
gasoline or diesel fuel cannot be recovered over the 
operational life of the ultra-low and zero emission 
motor vehicle; and/or 

• The use of a motor vehicle or motorized equipment 
that complies with the proposed emission 
requirements would disrupt departmental operations 
due to lack of adequate alternative fuel stations or 
maintenance facilities. 

Moreover, beginning on the effective date of the proposed 
ordinance, all City departments would be required to 
purchase or lease only motorized equipment that is 
powered by alternative fuels. 

(e) Alternative Fuels Pilot Program 

Beginning on the effective date of the proposed ordinance, 
the Public Transportation Commission (PTC), with input 
from the San Francisco Transportation Authority, would 
implement an alternative fuels pilot program to evaluate 
the efficacy of using alternative fuel buses to reduce air 
pollution while maintaining the current level of service 
and safety. According to the proposed ordinance, the 
alternative fuels pilot program would consist of testing 
both compressed natural gas and hybrid diesel/electric 
buses in the City. The proposed ordinance also states 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

4 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

September 22, 1999 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

that the PTC must identify diesel bus lines that are 
appropriate for conversion to electric trolley lines and 
phase out diesel buses that have been in service for a time 
period greater than the time period set forth in federal 
funding guidelines. 

Chapter 85 of the Administrative Code would also 
encourage private and regional entities conducting 
business in the City to use ultra-low or zero emission 
vehicles. 

The proposed ordinance would also amend Part II, 
Chapter XI of the San Francisco Municipal Code (Traffic 
Code) to add Section 32.2 1A to prohibit non-electric 
vehicles from parking in electric charging ba\'s located in 
City -owned garages or parking lots by making such an act 
an infraction punishable by a fine of between $100 and 
$200, and amend Section 32.22 to authorize the staff of 
the Police Department and the Department of Parking 
and Traffic to remove and impound any non-electric 
vehicles parked in a electric charging bay located in a 
City-owned garage or parking lot. Currently, non-electric 
vehicles are not prohibited from parking in electric 
charging bays and therefore may not be removed from 
such bays by the Police Department and the Department 
of Parking and Traffic staff. 

Comments: 1. The proposed ordinance includes a provision that 

would establish an alternative fuels pilot program. 
However, as presently written, the title of the proposed 
ordinance does not state that this legislation contains the 
above-noted provision. Mr. William Chan of the City 
Attorney's Office explains that such statements were 
inadvertently omitted from the title of the proposed 
ordinance. 

2. The proposed ordinance also includes a provision 
that states that grant-funding obtained by City 
departments for the purchase or lease of ultra-low and 
zero emission vehicles or motorized alternative fuel 
equipment may only be used to fund the difference in 
purchase or lease price between the ultra-low and zero 
emission vehicles or motorized alternative fuel equipment 
and the gasoline or diesel fueled motor vehicles and 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

5 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

September 22, 1999 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



motorized equipment that would otherwise be purchased 
or leased. This requirement may not apply to 
demonstration and pilot projects, wherein grant funding 
may be used to fund the entire purchase or lease price of 
the ultra-low and zero emission vehicles or motorized 
alternative fuel equipment. 

The Costs of Implementing the Proposed Ordinance 

3. According to the Office of the Sponsor, Clean Air 
Advisory Committee members would serve as 
representatives of their respective City departments and 
as such, would not receive any additional compensation 
for serving on the Committee. 

4. Mr. Costelino Hogan of the Planning Department 
states that the construction and operation of the proposed 
five public access natural gas fueling stations within the 
City would be entirely funded by private developers. Mr. 
Hogan states that the Planning Department intends to 
use existing departmental staff to identify such private 
developers and assist the developers in planning and 
developing the proposed five public access natural gas 
fueling stations within the City. 

5. Attachment II, provided by Ms. Julia Dawson of the 
Department of Parking and Traffic (DPT), contains an 
estimate totaling $225,000 in one-time costs for the 
installation of 50 public access electric charging bays in 
City -owned garages. 

6. Also in Attachment II, referring to DPT's cost to 
remove and impound non-electric vehicles parked in 
electric charging bays, Ms. Dawson states that "Although 
we have minimal experience with electric charging bays 
in public facilities and do not know how many violations 
we would be asked to enforce, we think that enforcing this 
legislation would not significantly increase the 
department's current cost of enforcement." Ms. Dawson 
advises that she cannot estimate the annual revenue that 
the DPT would realize from the proposed fines for parking 
a non-electric vehicle in an electric charging bay. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

6 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

September 22, 1999 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



7. Mr. Mark Goldstein of the Public Transportation 
Department (PTD) reports that the total estimated one- 
time cost of proposed alternative fuels pilot program, 
which consists of testing both compressed natural gas and 
hybrid diesel/electric buses for a two-year period in the 
City, is $3,167,380. Attachment III is a budget, provided 
by Mr. Goldstein, containing supporting details on this 
one-time cost of $3,167,380. Mr. Goldstein states that the 
PTD intends to evaluate the performance of four (4) 
alternative fuel buses, including two compressed natural 
gas buses and two hybrid diesel/electric buses, during the 
proposed pilot program in order to determine the 
feasibility for their continued and expanded use 
throughout the City. Therefore, annual operation and 
maintenance costs for such vehicles beyond the two-j-ear 
pilot program have not 3 r et been determined, according to 
Mr. Goldstein. 

8. Attachment IV, provided by Mr. Ara Minasian of the 
City's Purchasing Department, contains an estimate of 
the City's increased costs in FY 1999-2000, totaling 
$1,215,000, to purchase vehicles which would comply w r ith 
the proposed criteria for the City's procurement of ultra- 
low and zero emission vehicles. Of this projected amount 
of $1,215,000, the estimated fiscal impact to General 
Fund supported City departments would be $450,000 and 
to non-General Fund supported City departments would 
be $765,000, as shown on Page 2 of Attachment IV. Mr. 
Minasian states that because City departments will have 
purchased some gasoline and diesel powered vehicles, 
instead of ultra-low and zero emission vehicles, before 
this proposed subject ordinance is approved, the above- 
noted cost estimate of $1,215,000 is overstated. 
Nevertheless, as of the writing of this report, DAS cannot 
provide a more precise cost estimate, according to Mr. 
Minasian. 

Available Funding Sources to Implement the 
Proposed Ordinance 

9. Ms. Dawson anticipates that the installation of the 50 
electric charging bays in City-owned garages, whose total 
estimated one-time cost is $225,000, would be entirely 
funded from grant monies from the following entities: 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

7 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

September 22, 1999 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



• Electric vehicle-makers such as General Motors, 
Honda and Ford Companies ($25,000) 

• The Bay Area Air Quality Management District 
($153,000) 

• The United States Department of Energy and/or other 
BAAQMD grant funds ($47,000) 

Mr. Goldstein anticipates that the alternative fuels pilot 
program, whose total estimated one-time cost is 
$3,167,380, would be entirely funded from grant monies 
from the following entities: 

• The San Francisco Transportation Authority 

• The Bay Area Air Quality Management District 

Mr. Minasian anticipates that in FY 1999-2000, the 
estimated increased cost of $450,000 for General Fund 
supported City departments to purchase ultra-low and 
zero emission vehicles would be partially funded from 
grant monies, totaling $385,000, from the following 
entities: 

• The San Francisco Transportation Authority 

• The Bay Area Air Quality Management District 

According to Mr. Minasian, other grant funds from the 
Bay Area Air Quality Management District will become 
available in FY 1999-2000 for the City to fund the 
additional $65,000 (total estimated cost of $450,000 less 
subject grant funds of $385,000). 

Mr. Minsasian also anticipates that in FY 1999-2000, the 
estimated increased cost of $765,000 for non-General 
Fund supported City departments to purchase ultra-low 
and zero emission vehicles would be partially funded from 
a grant award of $120,000 from the San Francisco 
Transportation Authority to the Airport. Mr. Minasian 
states that the DAS has not yet identified other funding 
sources for this project. 

10. Mr. Ruvolo states that vehicles powered by 
alternative fuels, such as electricity and compressed 
natural gas, are less expensive to operate and maintain 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

8 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

September 22, 1999 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



than gasoline or diesel powered vehicles since alternative 
fuels are 25 to 50 percent less costly than gasoline or 
diesel and vehicle engines powered by alternative fuels 
require less routine maintenance than gasoline or diesel 
engines. However, as of the writing of this report, he is 
unable to estimate the amount of cost-savings that the 
City would realize from the operation and maintenance of 
such alternative fuel vehicles. 

11. In summary, in order to implement this ordinance, 
according to data provided by the Department of Parking 
and Traffic, the Public Transportation Department and 
the Department of Administrative Services, in FY 1999- 
2000, the City would be required to expend total 
estimated one-time costs of $3,392,380 (including 
$225,000 for the installation of 50 electric charging bays 
in City-owned garages and $3,167,380 for the alternative 
fuels pilot program) and total increased costs, which are 
estimated at a maximum of $1,215,000 for FY 1999-2000. 
It is anticipated that the primary funding source of such 
costs will be grant funds. 



Recommendations: 1. In accordance with Comment No. 1 above, amend the 

title of the proposed ordinance to state that this 
legislation contains a provision that would establish an 
alternative fuels pilot program. 

2. Approval of the proposed ordinance, as amended, is a 
policy matter for the Board of Supervisors. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

9 



Attachment I 
r'ase l or 2 



MEMORANDUM 

To: Gabriel Cabrera 

Budget Analyst's trice 

From: Rick Ruvolo 

Department of Administrative Services 

C: AraMinasian 

DAS, Finance Director 

Subject: File 99-0624 

Date: September 3, 1999 

In response to your request for information, please see our comments listed 
below. 

Alternative (or "clean") fuels activities were first organized in the Office of 
the Chief Administrarive Officer approximately 10 years ago. In 1993, the 
City Employees Commute Assistance Program (CECAP) was developed to 
reduce vehicle emissions by eliminating automobile trips made by city 
employees. Rick Ruvolo, the coordinator of this program, was also 
directed to coordinate the City's alternative fuels activities. 

In early 1999, CECAP was renamed the Clean Air Program(CAP) to better 
reflect the program's comprehensive efforts to improve air quality. Ruvolo 
continues as the manager of this program, still overseeing trip reduction 
projects and coordinating the clean air efforts of a Department of 
Administrarive Services coalition consisting of DAS staff in Purchasing, 
Central Shops, and Finance. 

CECAP/CAP currently consists of 2.0 (FTE) administrative/project 
management staff and 2 employee shuttle drivers. Projects developed and 
managed by CECAP/CAP staff include the Hall of Justice Shuttle, 
Employee Commute Information, the pre-tax Commuter Check Project, the 
Hall of Justice Videoconferencing Project, the Spare the Air Project and 
Vanpool and Bicycle Projects including Bike to Work Day. 



10 



Attachment I 
Pa?e 2 of 2 



In addition to the above trip reduction efforts, CECAP/CAP staffhave 
received grant awards to suDport: 

-the development of a compressed natural gas fueling facility at the 
Presidio of SF; 

-the establishment of electric vehicle charging infrastructure in SF 
and throughout the SF Bay Area; 

-pilot projects demonstrating: l)the use of compressed natural gas in 
30 SF taxicabs, 2)the use of liquefied natural gas, compressed natural gas 
and hybrid electric garbage and recycling trucks, 3) the use of bicycles by 
the San Francisco Police DepL and other city employees. 

Since its inception, CECAP/CAP has been funded entirely from non- 
general fund (grant) sources. Given the expansion of program activities 
and the anticipation of further expansion mandated by the Healthy Air 
Program legislation (File 99-0624) pending before the Board of 
Supervisors, funds for 1.25 (additional)FTE were approved as part of the 
FY99/00 General Fund budget process. (1998-99 budget totaled $359,687. 
Approved budget for 1999-00 totals 5503,948 which includes the additional 
1.25 FTE @S7 1,1 76, plus fringe benefits and supplies @ $16,413 and 
513,000 respectively). 

It is hoped that these additional positions will be hired during Oct/Nov. 
1999. Responsibilities will include project management assistance with 
ongoing alternative fuel projects, as well as the following: 

-assessment of evolving clean air vehicle technology; 

-education of City departments and promotion of clean fuel 

vehicles; 

-review of requests for exemptions to clean air vehicle 

policies; 

-funding and development of fueling infrastructure; 

-reporting; 

-staff support to the new Clean Air Advisory Committee; 

-leadership and outreach into the private sector to promote 

the use of clean fuels; and 

-other responsibilities, as directed, resulting from the implementation of the 

Healthy Air Program legislation. 

Please let me know if you have additional questions. Thank you. 



11 



City and County of San Francisco 



FRANCISCO 




DEPARTMENT OF PARKING & TRAFFIC 

WILLIE LEWIS BROWN, JR., Mayor 

STUART R. SUNSHINE, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR 




Azza.cr.-z.enz II 
Page 1 of 2 



MEMORANDUM 

To: Budget Analyst, Board of Supervisors 

From: Julia Dawson, Deputy Director 

Subject: Costs associated with installing charging bays in City garages 

Date: September 9, 1999 

I had discussions with Rick Ruvolo and Tom Adams of Administrative Services about the cost of installing charging; 
stations at City garages. 

Charging stations cost between S300 and SI, 000 depending on the type of charger (inductive or conductive). The 
construction in the garages is the expensive part of the installation because it requires trenching for electrical condui 
and varies in cost depending on the age and construction of the facility and the distance between the charging site 
and access to the electric panel. If we have to core drill in concrete or guide ourselves around the metal supports in 
the concrete, it increases the cost of construction. 



Based on experience in other facilities, Tom Adams estimated that the cost per facility of installing charging statio 
is between S12,000 and 515,000. So, if we pick 15 sites and install 50 total chargers, it would cost the City 
approximately S225,000. 



' 



According to Tom Adams, the electric vehicle manufacturers would probably be willing to provide some funding 
assistance for some of these locations. He estimated that the City could receive between $25,000 and S40,000 in 
funding for installing charging stations. The Department of Administrative Services already has received a grant for 
SI 53,000 that it plans to use to support the installation of charging stations. The City has also received other fundim 
from the Bay Area Air Quality Management District and the Department of Energy that could be used to support thi 
installation of these stations. 

Here is a possible scenario for the sources of funds for charger installations: 

Estimated Cost S225,000 (assumed S 1 5.000 per location) 

Grant (SI 53,000) 

Vehicle Manufacturer's Grant (S 25,000) (assumed low end of range) 

Dept. of Energy or BAQMD Grant Funds (S 47,000) 



Estimated Net Cost 



S 



(415) 554-PARK FAX (415) 554-9834 



25 Van Ness Avenue, Suite 410 

12 



San Francisco, CA 94102-457 



R A N C I S C O 




City and County of San Francisco 

Attachment II 



EPARTMENT OF PARKING & TRAFFIC 



ILLIE LEWIS BROWN, JR., Mayor 

iUART R. SUNSHINE. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR 




rase 1 or 1 



[ere is the information you asked for on the cost of enforcement: 

)ur garage operators currently call parking control officers to cite for the inappropriate use of handicapped spaces in 
ur public parking garages. Although we have minimal experience with electric charging bays in public facilities 
ad do not know how many violations we would be asked to enforce, we think that enforcing this legislation would 
ot significantly increase the department's current cost of enforcement. 



(41 5) 554-PARK FAX (41 5) 554-98M 



25 Van Ness Avenue, Suite 410 

13 



San Francisco, CA 941C 



Attachment I 






__* to«» fa* fa* fa* 



o =- 

Z =. 
'■J £ 



„ 3 .S «o > > 































<-l| = 






< 


sh 
























*n 








J 






























OO 








































fa". 






z> 


~ 








- 


— 


V. 






















































































>L 


- 


< = 




= 


_ 














y so 


















; 










s 


— 


















































3 I'M 
























50 








- 


^J 


S 




























< 








~z 




fa* 














- 












~ 









2 1 







2 = 2 S S =|= 


















< 


= = 5355 




= = = = = = 






^ = r>i 3^ wl oo 








•* r~- rvj — . fa* — 






3 


to* to** fa* fa* 


_" 




?■ 




*~ 






= = = 














= = = 














= = = 
















= «<"l = 








»-» r- oo 


c*: 


^ 1* 




fa* fa* — 




M 3 




fa* 


^ 










J 2 


3 






to i. 
















































c 














V 


n ox 


— 1 — . — . — . 


=. 


u 










50 3 




JC 




5 - 


"*T fa* fa* fa* 


^, 




— 2 


fa* 


W. 




























■ 






< 












u 


3 3 














= = = 






so ,r 






« 


fa* fa* to* 


v«> 




















Ed 


2 = 






> 


u 8 






a 


£ ■— — § 






z 








u 


= — =. 5 






Ed 


3 J£ «» > >. 








J Phase 
icic Pro 
ing/Ma 
Nl tug/ 

Ungate 






< 
U 






Ed 


<* « = 2 « 5 


"5 






BS > u. 2 r- CJ 


— 











s. 


** = = = 






















< 


«^v 


JC 


*r\ </% -r 


~- 








*tol 


r- <-N oo 












M 










Q 




_^ 


«* «* fa* 









~ 








-«. 


























fa* = = = 




































tfl 


,-, 


wl to^ *f 















r» rvi oo 


~ 


















c 






M 


fa* fa* fa* 
































v 1 . 


-~ 


































































































< 


- i 

— C5 
50 = 

3 (5 

— ^ 








to* 

= 




< 
















3 3 












Efa 


50 — 




~ 














M 




•^ 






VI 














_; 






Z r. 
































































Ed 

> 




n 


II. Ill 














^= = rz 








=: 


a 


O 


■- 55 •?; >- 














-= ,=, <*S u 








2 


— 


u 


50 ~" 30 3f 




























= z = = 








t/5 


=3 


— 


= — u o 


3 






— 


— 


<> 


— *L — — 


— 



^ < 



z = 

U u 
- > 



= 3 

S 3" 
< £ 



14 



===-32-13=9 IS: 31 



CCSF ADMIN. SESUIGES 




DEPARTMENT OF 



415 =.^4 5177 P. 02/87 

Attachment IV 
?a?e 1 of k 



WILLIE L. BROWN, JR. 
Mayor 

STEVEN D. NELSON 

DltSCTOR 



ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES 



Septembers, 1999 



To : Gabe Cabrera 

Budget Analyst 

From : Ana Minasiarv 

Financial Manager 

Subject: Costs of clean air vehicles; grant funds 



The following summarizes the information that you, Rick Ruvolo, and I discussed last 
week in regard to the proposed Healthy Air and Smog Prevention ordinance. 

Costs of clean air vehicles 

To serve as a basis for estimating the increased costs to the City of purchasing clean 
air vehicles, I used the FY 99-00 equipment budget for vehicles. Tnis year's budget 
includes the following vehicles: 



Vehicle Category 


G/F Supported 
Departments 


Non-G/F/ 

Supported 

Departments 


i 
Total 










General purDose autos 


47 


84 


131 


PickuDS 


15 


81 


96 


Vans 


31 


11 


42 


Emergency vehicles 


155 





155 


[Other 


60 


44 


104 


| Total 


308 


220 


528 



After the proposed ordinance is in effect, the City will be mandated to purchase clean 
air vehicles; however, there will be certain exemptions from this requirement. 
Rick Ruvolo, Dave Cowley (Central Shops) and I have reviewed this year's vehicle 
budget, for the purpose of estimating the proportion of vehicles that most likely would 
be exempted, based on our understanding of the clean air vehicle market and 
departments' needs. Our (very rough) estimates are as follows; 



City Hall, Room 362, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place, San Francisco, CA 94102-4683 
Telephone (415) 554-6171; Fax (415) 554-6177 



15 



SEP-08-1999 16:52 CCSF QDMIN. SERVICES 



Gabe Cabrera 
September8, 1999 
Paae 2 



41S 554 £:77 P. 22/07 

Attachment IV 
Page 2 of 4 



Vehicle Category 


% 


Exempted 


% Clean Air 
Vehicles 






General purpose antes 







100 


P'lCkUDS 




25 


75 


Vans 




50 


50 


Emergency venicles 




100 





Other 




90 


10 



Comments on these percentages: 

• For pickup trucks and vans, departments frequently need models (e.g.. crew cab) or 
special equipment (e.g., utility bed) that are not available in clean fuel models. 

• Emergency vehicles are exempted from the requirement entirely — although both the 
Police and Fire Departments have acquired some clean air vehicles already and 
have indicated their intent to continue doing so for a portion of their fleets. 

• Most of the vehicles in the "other" category are large heavy-duty vehicles that are 
not available in clean fuel models at this time. 

• The above percentages may change over time in favor of more ciean air vehicles, 
as the technologies and markets continue to develop. 

The current incremental costs of light duty clean air vehicles vary from $3,500 to $8,000 
per vehicle. Incremental costs are lower for CNG vehicles, higher for electric. 
Currently, most of the clean air vehicles the City is purchasing are CNG vehicles. 
Incremental costs for heavy duty and other vehicles vary widely. 

Using the City's FY 99-00 vehicle budget; the exemption factors listed above; and 
average incremental costs of $4,500 and $20,000 for light duty and heavy duty 
vehicles, respectively, results in the following estimates of total incremental costs: 



G/F supported departments 
Non-G/F supported departments 
Total 



$450,000 
765.000 

S1.215.00Q 



16 



U-br SDH IN. 5=RUIC=5 



Gabe Cabrera 
Ssptembsr8, 1999 
Page 3 



77 P . 04/07 

Attachment IV 
fave j or 4 



Please note the following in regard to the above cost estimates: 

• For FY 99-00, the above estimates are overstated, because departments will 
already have purchased many vehicles before the proposed ordinance will be in 
effect Administrative Services and Purchasing staff are seeking the cooperation of 
departments in complying with the proposed ordinance immediately, but some 
vehicles undoubtedly will be purchased in gasoline form before the ordinance takes 
effect 

• The above figures do not include any cost estimates for stationary and motorized 
equipment such as grounds maintenance equipment used by the Recreation and 
Park Department. You will need to contact Rec/Park directly on that subject. 

• In some cases, the amounts that departments have budgeted in the FY 99-00 
budget will be sufficient to cover the incremental costs for clean fuel models. 

• Some of the vehicles in this year's budget are budgeted for lease-purchase through 
the San Francisco Finance Corporation. As a result, the incremental cost of 
acquiring clean air vehicles would be spread over the term of the leases. 

• The fiscal impact in future years will be greater or less than the figures shown 
above, depending on the size of the City's future vehicle budgets. This year's 
budget for vehicles is larger than the average budget over the past several years, 
for both G/F supported and non-G/F supported departments. 

• Incremental costs are expected to decline as the markets for clean air vehicles 
grow. 

Grant and incentive fi^rf ?? 

To some extent, grants and incentive funds from outside sources will offset the 
incremental costs described above. Tne primary source of funds is the Transportation 
Fund for Clean Air (TFCA). administered by the Bay Area Air Quality Management 
District (BAAQMD). At this time, the Department of Administrative Services has the 
following TFCA grant and incentive funds available for FY 99-00: 

• Remaining grant funds from FY 98-99 S265.000 

• FY 99-00 incentive funds 120.000 

• Total S385.000 



17 



SEP-0S-1999 16:52 



Gabe Cabrera 
Septembers, 1999 
Page 4 



CCSF RDM IN. SERVICES 



•515 554 £177 P. 25/07 

Attachment IV 
Page k of 4 



Additional FY 99-00 TFCA funds are likely to become available through the portion of 
the TFCA program that is administered by the San Francisco County Transportation 
Authority (SFCTA). In FY 98-99, we were awarded $100,000 in sucn funds from the 
SFCTA, and we expect to receive comparable amounts this year and in the future. 

Our intent is to apply a large portion of the available grant and incentive funds to the 
vehicle purchases of G/F supported departments. Thus, for FY 99-00 purchases by 
G/F supported departments, grants will significantly offset the incremental costs of 
anticipated clean air vehicle purchases — because we have two years' worth of grants 
available for one year's purchases. In future years, grant programs will cover a smaller 
proportion of vehicle purchases, unless new grants become available. 

For non-G/F supported departments, the only grant funding we are currently aware of is 
$120,000 in TFCA incentive funds that were recently awarded to the Airport. 

For reference, I am attaching a table of all of the clean air vehicle grants awarded to the 
Department of Administrative Services since FY 92-93. This table does not include 
some grants that were awarded directly to other departments, e.g., Airport, Public 
Works, Parking and Traffic, and Municipal Railway. 

Please cail me at 554-6215 if there are any questions. 

c: Dave Cowley 
Rick Ruvolo 
Karen Hong 
Bill Lee 



18 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

September 22, 1999 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

Items 3 and 4 - Files 99-1502 and 99-1503 



Department: 
Item: 



Description: 



Human Rights Commission (HRC) 

File 99-1502 

Ordinance amending Chapter 6 of the Administrative 
Code by amending Section 6.40 to (a) require City 
contractors for public works or improvement projects to 
provide data regarding their employment and personnel 
practices and the employment and personnel practices of 
their subcontractors, and (b) establish sanctions on 
contractors for failure to comply with such reporting 
requirements. 

File 99-1503 

Ordinance amending Chapter 12B of the Administrative 
Code by amending Section 12B.2 to authorize the Director 
of the HRC to (a) declare contractors and subcontractors 
who violate the nondiscrimination provisions of City 
contracts as "irresponsible bidders", thereby prohibiting 
them from bidding for City contracts and leases for up to 
two years, or until they provide assurance of future 
compliance with the City's nondiscrimination contract 
provisions; (b) impose sanctions on such contractors and 
subcontractors for failure to comply with such 
nondiscrimination provisions; and (c) make non- 
substantive clerical revisions to Chapter 12B.2. 

The proposed amendment to Section 6.40 of the 
Administrative Code (File 99-1502) would (a) require City 
contractors to submit currently required prevailing wage 
and employee information for their companies and for 
their subcontractors' companies, in a format designated 
by the Director of the HRC; (b) give the Director of the 
HRC access to that data; and (c) impose sanctions on 
contractors who fail to provide all the required data. Non- 
compliant contractors would be subject to the penalties as 
outlined in the attached memorandum (Attachment I) 
provided by Ms. Virigina Harmon and Ms. Nichole Truax 
of the HRC. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

19 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

September 22, 1999 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

The proposed amendment to Section 12B.2 of the 
Administrative Code (File 99-1503) would authorize the 
Director of the HRC to impose the same sanctions on City 
contractors and subcontractors who violate the 
nondiscrimination provisions of their City contracts or 
subcontracts as can be imposed under Chapters 12B by 
the City departments which award the contracts or 
subcontracts (see Comment No. 3 below). 

Comments: 1. In Attachment I, Ms. Harmon and Ms. Truax state 

that while the penalties proposed in Section 6.40 are new 
(File 99-1502), their primary purpose is to provide strong 
incentives for contractors to submit their workforce data 
in a timely manner. Therefore, it is not anticipated that 
the new penalties will generate any significant revenue 
for the City, according to Ms. Harmon and Ms. Truax. 

2. In the second attached memorandum (Attachment II), 
Ms. Harmon and Ms. Truax also state that the proposed 
amendment to Section 6.40 of the Administrative Code 
(File 99-1502) would streamline the information 
gathering process. 

3. Ms. Harmon and Ms. Truax also state in Attachment 
II that implementation by the HRC of the proposed 
amendment of Section 12B.2 of the Administrative Code 
(File 99-1503) would have no additional significant fiscal 
impact on the HRC's existing costs because "The HRC 
already evaluates complaints and issues findings of 
discrimination under Chapter 12B." The sole purpose of 
the proposed amendment is to authorize the Director of 
the HRC to be able to impose the same sanctions on City 
contractors or subcontractors who violate the City's 
nondiscrimination provisions as can be imposed by the 
City departments which awarded the contracts or 
subcontracts. However, Ms. Harmon and Ms. Truax 
advise that, under the proposed amendment to Section 
12B.2, penalties could not be imposed twice for a single 
Chapter 12B violation. Therefore, for example, if the 
Director of the HRC imposed sanctions on an individual 
contractor or subcontractor, then the City department 
which awarded that contract or subcontract would not 
also be able to impose the same sanctions. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

20 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

September 22, 1999 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

Recommendation: Approve the proposed ordinances. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

21 



Attachment I 



City and County of San Francisco 






Date 

To: 

From: 

Re 



Willie Lewis Brown. Jr. 
Mayor 



Human Rights Commission 

Equal Opportunity & Minoriry/vVomen/LoeaJ Bwitu Enterpnse 

Nondiscrimination m Employment. Public Accommodations & Housing 

Lesoian Gay, Transgender & HIV 

Youth & Education 



MEMORANDUM 

September 3, 1999 

Alan Gibson, 3udge: Analyst 

Virginia Harmon, Contract Compliance Officer 
Nichole Truax. Special Assistant 

Propcsed Section 6.40 of the Aammistrative Cede 



Marivic S. Samoi 
Executive Director 



Summary of graduated penalties Failure to tun in data would 
result in S1 .500 00 witnnolding oer employee per month If 
contractors fail to submit the data within 30 days after the due date, 
in spite of the withhclding, the contractor shall forfeit 5150 00 of the 
impounded funds for each employee whose workforce data the 
Director found to be delinquent. If they fail to provioe the data 
within six months, all funds impcundec shall be forfeited to the City. 

These penalties are new The penalties are irtenced to force 
contractors to submit the woncforce data in timely manner. 
Therefore, it is anticipated that these penalties will not result in a 
significant revenue to the city. Once contractors' progress 
payments are withheld, it is anticipated that contractors will cuickly 
come into compliance 



Z 1 - Van Ness Avenue. Suite 300 

San Francisco 

California 94102-6033 

WcCsite. hnp //www ci ?v< ca us/sfhumunnghls 



TEL U15l 252-2500 

FAX i415) 431-5764 

TDD (4-!5) 252-7550 

Email: sihumanr ightsconwSa ..%! ca us 



fe. 



r-ase I or. ~2~ 



City and County of San Francisco 



r ryr r \^ 



^ 



Willie Lswis 9rown, Jr. 
Mayor 



Human Rights Commission 

Contract Compliance 

Oispute Resolulion/Fair Housing 

Minorrty/Women/Locai Business Enterprise 

LesbUn Gay Bisexual Transqenacr & HIV Discrimination 



Marivic S. Bamba 
Executive Director 



MEMORANDUM 



To: 

From: 

Date: 
Re: 



Aian Gibson, Budget Analyst 

Mike Farra, Supervisor's Newscm's Office 

Virginia Harmon. HRC IjQj 
Nichcie Truax, HRC 

Auqust 11, 1999 

Fiscal impact of Amendments to Chapter 12B and Section 6.40 



Chapter 123 of the Administrative Code provides that the Human Rights 
Commission (HRC) is the implementing agency for the City's Non-discriminaticn 
in Contracts provisions. The proposed amendment to Chapter 12B of the 
Administrative Code would give the HRC the authority to impose sanctions to 
enforce these provisions. 

This amendment would not have a significant fiscal impact on the City. The 
HRC already evaluates complaints and issues findings of discrimination under 
Chapter 12B. This amendment will simply allow the HRC to enforce the 
provisions it is obligated to monitor. Currently, the HRC has the authority to 
impose similar sanctions under the 12D ordinance (M/WBE Utilization 
Ordinance). The authority to sanction has imposed no significant fiscal impact on 
the City. 

The proposed amendment to Chapter 6.40 of the Administrative Code is 
intended to streamline the City's monitoring of Construction Contractors' 
workforces. Presently, the Human Rights Commission requires the submission 
of workforce tracking forms to ensure that the Contractors arc in compliance with 
the City's diversity gcals under Chapter 123. At the same time, contract 
awarding authonties also require the submission of workforce information in the 
form of Certified Payroll to ensure that Contractors on construction projects 
comply with the prevailing wage provisions of the Administrative Code. 

This amendment is intended to consolidate these burdensome efforts so that the 
City will able to monitor workforces more efficiently. In fact, there will be a 
positive fiscal impact (savings) to the City in that contractors presently bill the 



CSu 



25 Van Ness Avenue 
;. -. Suite 800 

5. in Francisco 
CalifnmUi 94102-G03.1 



TEL (415) 252-2500 

FAX (4". S) 431-57G4 

TOO (41S) 252-2550 

http://wY><w<.ifhum<inrlqrit*.nr<i 



b. 



,, ^„ ~. -,, Attachment II 

Aug- ll -99 04:31 Page 2 or 1 



City through contract administrative costs for all paperwork required under the 
terms of trie contract. Thus, this amendment prevents the need to submit 
workforce data twice. 

Thank you (or your efforts in ensuring this amendment goes throuyn. If you nave 
any questions, olease do not hesilate to oontac: us at (415) 554-3100 or (415) 
252-2502 



24 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

September 22, 1999 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



Item 5 - File 99-1573 

Department: 

Item: 



Amount: 
Source of Funds: 

Description: 



San Francisco Community College District (SFCCD) 

Ordinance appropriating $20,460,150 of General 
Obligation Bonds (Educational Facility Bonds, 1997 - 
SFCCD) Series 1999A proceeds for the acquisition, 
construction, and upgrading of educational facilities at 
the San Francisco Community College District, costs of 
issuance, and debt service for fiscal year 1999-2000. 

$20,460,150 

General Obligation Bonds (Educational Facility Bonds, 
1997 - SFCCD) Series 1999A, hereafter referred to as 
"Educational Facility Bonds, Series 1999A". 

On June 3, 1997, a total of $50,000,000 in General 
Obligation Bonds for the acquisition, construction, and/or 
reconstruction of SFCCD educational facilities was 
approved by the electorate. Educational Facility Bonds, 
Series 1999A were issued on June 16, 1999 to fund the 
acquisition, construction and/or reconstruction of 
educational facilities for the SFCCD. According to Ms. 
Laura Opsahl-Bordelon of the Mayor's Office of Public 
Finance and Economic Development, the total Bond 
proceeds for Educational Facility Bonds, Series 1999A are 
in the amount of $20,460,150. 

The subject supplemental appropriation would 
appropriate $20,460,150 in bond proceeds for the 
following: (a) $9,095,793 for the acquisition of land to be 
used for campuses for the SFCCD in Chinatown and the 
Mission District; (b) $2,745,715 for health and safety- 
upgrades; (c) $250,457 for disability access improvements; 
(d) $2,003,834 for renovation projects; (e) $5,967,427 for 
technology, network, and electrical upgrades; (f) $250,000 
for childcare facilities; (g) $79,211 for bond issuance 
costs; and (h) $67,713 for debt service costs (accrued 
interest payments and a portion of the underwriter's 
premium). 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

25 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

September 22, 1999 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



Budget: 



The budget is summarized as follows: 









Total 




Incurred 


Not Yet 


Estimated 


Purpose of Appropriation 


as of 06/30/99 


Expended 


Costs 


Land acquisitions 


$9,095,793 


$0 


$9,095,793 


(Chinatown/Mission District) 








Health and safety upgrades 


1,120,715 


1,625,000 


2,745,715 


Disability access improvements 





250,457 


250,457 


Renovation projects 


1,278,834 


725,000 


2,003,834 


Technology, network, and electrical 


882,427 


5,085,000 


5,967,427 


Upgrades 








Childcare facilities 





250.000 


250.000 


Subtotal 


$12,377,769 


$7,935,457 


$20,313,226 


Bond Issuance Costs 





79,211 


79,211 


Debt Service 





67.713 


67.713 


TOTAL 


$12,377,769 


$8,082,381 


$20,460,150 



Together, Attachments I and II, provided by Mr. Peter 
Goldstein of the SFCCD, contain a budget for the capital 
improvements projects in the amount of $20,313,226 
which would be totally funded by the Educational Facility 
Bonds, Series 1999A. 

Attachment I contains a budget for SFCCD capital 
improvement expenditures in the amount of $12,377,769 
which were incurred by the SFCCD as of June 30, 1999. 
Attachment II contains a budget for SFCCD capital 
improvement expenditures in the amount of $7,935,457 
which are planned to be expended as of March 2001. 
Together, the capital improvement projects in 
Attachments I and II total $20,313,226, as shown in the 
Subtotal in the table above. 



Comments: 



1. In November 1997, the Board of Supervisors 
authorized and directed the sale of General Obligation 
Bonds (Educational Facility Bonds, 1997 - SFCCD) Series 
1998B not to exceed $17,000,000 ( Resolution No. 1027- 
97). The issuance of General Obligation Bonds 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

26 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

September 22, 1999 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



(Educational Facility Bonds, 1997 - SFCCD) Series 
1998B was delayed due to litigation related to Proposition 
D which had been placed on the same June 3, 1997 ballot 
to authorize the City to issue Football Stadium Bonds to 
finance a portion of a new stadium development project at 
Candlestick Park. This litigation delayed bond counsel 
issuing a final opinion on the validity of the SFCCD 
bonds. Consequently, the SFCCD requested that 
additional bond funds be issued to cover project costs for 
an additional year. On March 1, 1999 the Board of 
Supervisors authorized and directed the sale of 
Educational Facility Bonds, Series 1999A not to exceed 
$23,000,000 (File 99-0197), thereby replacing the previous 
authorization of $17,000,000. This represented an 
increase of $6,000,000, or approximately 35 percent. 

Educational Facilities Bonds, Series 1999A were issued 
on June 16, 1999 (File 99-1154). According to Ms. 
Opsahl-Bordelon, the total Bond proceeds for Educational 
Facility Bonds, Series 1999B are in the amount of 
$20,460,150. 

2. On February 26, 1999 Mr. Goldstein submitted to the 
Finance Committee of the Board of Supervisors a budget 
breakdown of the proposed $20,313,226 capital 
improvements budget to be funded by Educational 
Facilities Bonds, Series 1999A. The capital 
improvements budget in the amount of $20,313,226 
shown in the Table on the previous page shows how the 
budget is currently allocated. Although the total budget 
of $20,313,226 remained unchanged, between February 
and September 1999 there have been various shifts in the 
allocation of funds between component capital 
improvement projects. Attachment III is a memorandum 
provided by Mr. Goldstein which identifies such budget 
reallocations and explains why they have occurred. 

3. As shown in Attachment I, SFCCD capital 
improvement project expenditures in the amount of 
$12,377,769, or approximately 61 percent of the subject 
$20,313,226 capital improvements budget, have already 
been incurred as of June 30, 1999, prior to obtaining 
Board of Supervisors approval. Attachment IV is a 
memorandum from Mr. Goldstein which explains why the 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

27 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

September 22, 1999 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

SFCCD incurred expenditures of $12,377,769 of the 
subject requested funds prior to obtaining appropriation 
approval from the Board of Supervisors. 

Recommendation: Because expenditures of approximately 61 percent, or 

$12,377,769, of the total requested capital improvement 
budget of $20,313,226 have already been incurred by the 
SFCCD prior to obtaining appropriation approval from 
the Board of Supervisors, approval of the proposed 
ordinance is a policy matter for the Board of Supervisors. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Attachment T 
"■fage 1 of A 













O [CM ico 


[to ICM ICM 


C3 


j CO 1 LO 1 LO 1 CO j G5 


— 


ICO ;-3- 


10 iro 


ico 




CO 


ILO 












t/3 

03 


05 


ICM Iro kfr 




r- o cm 




t- iro icm !^r !*s- 


□3 


colo 


ICM |CM 


h* - 






•* 




35 














03 


i lo_ Niq 




o -c 


o 


CM 




-T 


O |r~ ICO IC3_ 


LO 


r - 


o 




G5 LO_ 




CO 






h- 




LO 
















r: m 


1 CO 1 C3~ 


cm 




to" 


h- 


r*-" 


r^-" 




cm" 


h-"lco"loo" 


— 


-T 




T— 


ro" 




o" lo" 




■* 






-r" 




T^ 
















en *- 


|cO ICM 






LO 


y» 


CO 






CO 


a> to 


to 


to 


00 




r- 


CM 
















CO 




y» 














5 


2 ro 




fcO 


69 


fc^ 




fcO 




yj 


so 




to 


to 








W 




*o 


y» 




to 


yj 




fA 






to- 


















5 


£ 05 








































































x~ 


1 c 








































































LU 


-3 














































































ro 
o 

ra 

75 


5 
co 
>. 

CO 

05 

35 

ca 






c 
o 

ro 

ro 


5 

o 


E 
ro 
En 
w 

ro 

00 
,03 

_i 






5 
ro 
ro 


ro 
o 

ro 

ro 














o 

ro 






CD 

o 

o 

ro 

05 
35 










ri 
ro 

ro 
























1/5 


'ro 
Q 


5 




5 

^ 


o 

'5 

CO 


05 


o 




CO 


CO 


CD 


o 


5 


o 




_o 


> 

C5 
LU 




o 

o 


CD 
LU 




o 






CO 

ro 













h- 


Q 
LU 










o 




5 




o 






2 




o 


5 


"O 


5 


CD 


03 




03 












2 






o 




03 








O 










5 


>» 


— 




5 


>^ 


>% 


c 




g 


5 


ro 


ro 


£ 


ro 




ro 


>> 




^ 


^ 




ro 






1 




ro 








c* 

H 

oo 
a 

LU 

CD 


K 










05 


Jj 


j 




0) 


_C3 


Jj 


, 




0) 


0) 


35 


j 


x 


, 




, 


5 




2 


c 




i 






CD 




, 








=5 

o 










2 


to 

00 


c 




Z 


ro 

CO 


ro 

00 


ro 
o 




Z 


2 


5" 


5 


o 


ro 
o 




ro 
o 


ro 

00 




ro 

00 


"ro 
CO 




c 
O 






X 




^5 












(/5 




_G5 
3 


o3 


CO 




0) 


c$ 


=3 


ro 




03 

ro 


<D 

ro 
a 
E 


"ro 
o 


ro 


ro 


rc 




ro 


oS 




o3 


o3 




ro 






03 

3 




ro 








2 






05 




Q. 


= 


> 

o 




Q. 


£ 


£ 


> 
o 






> 

o 


> 
o 


> 





> 
o 


rE 




£ 


£ 




> 

o 






ca 

ro 




> 










. 






"o 






ro 


c 




E 


ro 


ro 


ro 




L5 




c 


ro 




c 


ro 




ro 


ro 




ro 








ro 








>- 








o 


03 


cd 




a 


CD 


CO 


CD 




o 


o 


CD 


C5 


CD 


CD 




CD 


a 




CD 


CD 




CD 






o 




CD 








LU 


a 






0. 




O 


I 


X 




O 


X 


X 


x 




O 


O 


LU 


X 


x 


OZ 




CC 


X 




X 


2Z 




X 






U 




or: 








_I 


< 








































































_l 

O 


LU 








































































CI 








































































o 


_1 








































































>- 


< 








































































H 


GO 
















































c 
























2 

X) 


LU 
















































o 






CD 


















3 










































35 

— 






ro 
ro 

X 






ro 

C5 










31 








o 
o 


Q 










































CD 






LU 






1- 










■a 








2 










— 
































05 






w 






ro 










ru 








LU 










CD 


















— 














r 






"TO 






CD 

> 










03 








OIQ- 










— 








"ro 










ro 
I 
ro 

ro 














< 






< 














3 


















o 
ro 








x 

"0 






















CD 
> 






CD 
> 






X 

o 










3 








ob 

2 2 










To 

CD 


> 

< 






3 
O 

o 


> 

< 








5 
O 


> 
< 












ro 
CD 

tj 


o 
> 
< 




ro 

03 

o 


HI 

> 
< 




O) CD 

CD > 

5 < 




00 




5 
X 



> 

< 
















c 


















C 














ro 






ro 




c 










ro 














1 


ro 






1 


ca 








• 


ro 












• 


ro 




1 


ro 




1 | ro 




T3 




• 


ro 






u-b 










c 


0) 






C i~05 








ro 














ro I ~a5 




ro : "o> 




ro| 05 




ro 




ro 


ro 






Z 12 
<lO 










ro 








ro 










ro 














ro Lc 






ro -c 




O 




ro 












05 




O 


£L 






ro 


0. 






|"5 


0. 












«i 


o Q- 




©a. 




CD 




CD 


X 










r^l 




_ro 


O 






_3 


o 








o 










— lo 


1— lo 




— o 




co 




JC 









C/) ICQ 






00 


10- 


lO 






0. 


LO 






ICL 


LO 










ID. ILO 


ID. ILO 


lO-llO 




C*5 




X 


L^ 







29 



Attachment : 
Fat?e I of k 









•3- IO IO 




Iro 




ra> cn r— 






3 




w 1- so 


13 IO 


IU3 IT3 












it, C- 


O 


CM 


DO 




1=0 




ro 


01 


-- 






w 






L.O 


IS — 
















in 




h-T 






cs 






q 

3 



















•_o 


iq r^._ 
o'l CO* 




3 C 


















— 3) *- 






.'-■ 






•y> 






CN 










=0 






00 


■y> 






M 


























w 


•_•■> 














M 


to 




.--• 


















Iw 


























1 2 r: 




















































bO 


■-■-■ 


















g .c <u 








































































x H E 


































































- 






UJ -=; 






- 


















































- 


























































































































■17 








































































---. 








































































< 


— 






































































cn "8 









































































< 






































































-L-- 










































































:'. 






































































O 








































































:-: 

-- 








































































r^ 


O 






































































ra 


3 






































































6 


U5 






































































j 


ra 








































C 




















= 










>, 


- 






















r- 




















































z 






















O 


















ce 




















ra 










u 








































































ra 


>i 






















CO 


















ce 




















ra 










LL 


— 































































































O 
> 




~Z 

DC 








D 
DC 









m 
c 
























ra 







O 




5 

-2 




ra 
_ 

3 

z 












o 




HI 






« 


>> 




>* 






£i 








ra 







E 






r 






c 


Z 


□ 




r 


ra 




> 












DC 

00 

5 


DC 






~ 


2 




E 






1 








1 










~7 






, 


~ 


1 


"7 


, 




_! 












2: 

=3 
O 




C/5 


c | ra 
O W 

to p* 




s 

C/3 






ra 
w 

4 






C 


z 

r 
5 
a 
E 




c 
15 








CO 






ra 
g 

ra 


- 


ra 


Z 

r 
— 




D 

ra 


ra 
Z 

ra 




ra 
CO 

--: 


ra 
Z 

ra 












z 






> Ira: 




c 












> 




> 






> 






> 


> 






> 


> 




— 


> 












LU 

o 




c; 


= 





















a 
















a 







C 






3 












r* 






c 


CD 




EC 






- 






ra 




c 






ra 






ra 


ra 




ra 


ra 




CD 


ra 












>■ 









O 











c 






D 







x 






E 






e 





z 




1 


c 




• 


1 












LU 


D 




0. 


DC 


_ 




X 






~ 






21 


'J 




DC 






DC 






^ 


~ 







Jl 


~ 




I 


X 












_J 


< 






































































-I 

o 


UJ 






































































DC 






































































u 


_i 






































































>- 


< 







































































r- 


00 






is 
































































2 


UJ 






5 
































































5 
2 
2 


DC 

r- 

Z 
HI 

C 

UJ 






O 
I 



3 






— 
DO 






— 
03 
































at 






5ji 

O 

CD 
















u 

o 
u 

00 






3 
33 
DC 

en 

- 
- 






— 
UJ 
in 
>> 

0. 






_ 

HI 

>* 
Ol 






•a 
CD 

V 

- 






I 

r- 






1 






ra 

a 

ra 

ra 
ra 








— 
- 
in 

'< 

- 






ra 
5 














O 
< 


D 






ra 

c 


CD 




— 


s 




3 


a> 







■ 


.^ 


ra 






1- 




■a 


r 






ra 


i' 




ra 
'J 


z 












2: 
3 
LL 






> 
< 




O 

Z 


-> 

< 






0? 


> 
< 






> 
< 




r 
:: 


> 
< 






> 
< 




ra 

00 


> 
< 






us 

> 


> 
< 




> 
< 
























ra 












ra 












ra 




1 c 








= 






ra 












2i 








~ 




1 


ra 




1 


x 




1 


co 




' 


ra 




1 


- 




1 1 co 






' 


ra 




1 


ra 












u_ 


Q 






■ 







ra 







— 







ra 


w 




c 


B 




cl a> 




ci 0) 






c 


3 




c 


ra 












< 


Q 






- 






CD 






ra 






ra 






- 






n Lc 




ra — 




1 co 






ra 
















0) 





0. 




c 


D. 




CI 


2. 




c 


iz 







51 




|0L 






T - 




c - 












CQ| 




-ra 




























— 3 




— i-cio 




CO 




— rar 












00 


00 


CLIIO 


IQ.110 


io- 


10 




m 


a. |ia 


'D-lLTl IQ.ILO 




DL |lO 




2. 











30 



Attachment I 
i^aqe 3 of 4 









S3 


T- ;t _ 


in 




O t- lO ICM -3-|-^- 


ILO 




las icoir- O) 


ICM t- |OJ IP 


C) !L0 
















O O 


03 


■C" l^" 


r^ 




CM 


LO 'CO lO iS. |N- 


O) 




CM IO |LO 


C3 




r^~ 1^3- io 




O IO 
















0"_ 


'""- """ - 


o 




LO 


T ~. t^ | r0 . t<rN L CH 


°- 






CM_|0)_|lT3 


LO_ 


"P- 


CM 


CO |CM_ 




°.l-* 
















■- - o 


c\T 


^i^" 


CO* 




o 


CO |-<3- co'lo* o" 


CM* 






CO* 1 LO* 


CM 


CM* 


co" 


CM* 


t-"|lo" 




O ICM 
















3 OJ *- 


cm ir-- |r-- icm 






feO- it- i-iO) CJ> 


to- 






T- lO 


==> 






=0- 


€-? 




LN 




WW 
















13 i °' 


t^ 


-3" |^3- fe9 




-r 


b" 


fc*y CM 


CM 










&9 fe^ 




to 






C/3- 


rf> 
























09-lcO- 






&o 


|0» 


» 
















































O J3 qj 














y> 






















































3-«- § 






































































LU 4 












































































to 

E 








□j 

5 
o 

'cn 
c 
LU 








o 
in 

CO 

■31 
C 


5 

(0 






















































o 

o 


CO 


_ 




3 


_ 




to 2 


CO 
















c 










c 






c 






















CO 
CO 


E 

o 


o 




o 


_5 


o 




, I 


D> 
















o 










O 






.2 






















ca 


o 


jjg 




IE 


ra 


ffl 


0. 




'■5 










(J 






ffl 










w 






re 






























< 






























































O 


CO 


CO 




£~ 


X 


E 


o 


3) 










c 






CO 










o 






o 




















o 

Q 

DC 


3 

o 
2 


ca 

O 

o 

2 


CO 

c 




CO 


LU 

5 


CO 

o 

CO 


"5 

2 


_J 

g 




o 






Lo 
'o 

CO 


O 


a 


CO 

c 




o 


o 


O 


c/j 




CD 


"lo 

3 












H 


Q 

in 















o 


o 


o 










o 








aj 


2 


5 




o 


o 


5 


o 




"a 


o 












O 






>. 


>- 


5 




& 


3 


c 


>, 


>. 


CD 




c 






>, 


c 


c 


3 




c 


c 


c 


3 




CO 


3 












CO ID 

UJj- 






2 


2 


o 




o 


a 


~ 


Q 


"5 




, 






l2 


, 


, 


CD 




, 


w 

c 
o 

> 

o 


, 


o 






CO 
















CO 

CO 
o3 


CO 

00 

o5 


C 
o 

CO 

> 
o 


2 
o 

3 

a 




2 

o 

3 


2 
a 

3 

a. 


a 

CO 

> 
o 


to 

CO 
c3 


CO 

CO 

t>8 


a 

CO 

> 




c 

_o 

"r6 
> 
o 






CO 
CO 


c 
o 

to 

> 
o 


o 

"co 
> 
o 


2 

o 

Q. 

E 




c 
o 

CO 

> 

o 


c 
o 

CO 

> 
o 


2 
a" 

3 




2 
O 
O 


2 

o 

3 
Q. 














'~~~ 


73 


"re 


c 


E 








c 


ro 


73 






- 






lo 


c 


c 






c 


c 






3 












CD;>- 




CO 


O) 


o 


o 




o 


5 


03 


o 


a> 


5 




0) 






cu 


a> 


CO 


o 




o 


a 


Q) 


o 




o 















UJIQ 


— 


CL 


X 


— 


K 


U 




o 


O 


X 


2 


2 


q: 




LT 






2 


LT 


LT 


o 




LT 


X 


cr: 


o 




LU 


o 












_l 


< 




































































_l 


HI 






































































O 


K 






































































o 


_i 






































































>- 


< 






































































h- 


CO 






co 
































































2|UJ 






E 
































































d!^ 






o 
































































If 






o 




































































cn 
































































U ILU 
OIQ- 

U|X 

to UJ 

ub 






CO 

O 

CO 

9 

5 

CO 

o 


cu 
> 
< 








m 

3 
00 

3 
E 


> 
< 












tfl 

a. 
E 

CO 

U 


o 
o 




CO 

CO 

U 


ffl 

CO 








CO 

3 
Q. 

5 


CO 

P 

CO 








CO 

3 

a 
- 
ro 

o 


o 

3 
C 
09 
> 
< 












2IZ 
<P 






o 




















CO 




v> 


CO 

a 








c 


c 
o 








CO 


CO 
3 












Fr 






1 


5 








• 


CO 












>> 


>» 

T3 




CO 
"D 


CTj 








3 
o 


'co 

CO 








CO 

> 


CO 

> 












UL|Q 






c 


0) 








c 


CO 












c 


T3 




< 


X 








5 

o 

O 








LU 


LU 










2 2 

<iO 




S 


ra 


51 
o 






CO 

c 


o 










1 ^ 


LU 

o 
Ifl 




C 

o 


g 








c 
3 









3 
O 


O 
O 












CO ICQ 




CO 


51 


LO 




LO 










l<ll^ 




■^It- 






laioo 





















2 



31 



Attachment I 
?a?e k of U 













o 'co io 'O ico 


CM IO 


3 lo 


O 'LO 


co iO"- 




id 














O 


-r .cm io km -c 


C) 'LO 


1-3- 


-. 


t 3 


— -r 


h~ 




10 












B 




rj) O I O r\l : ry 


o 


-r 


co 


in 


CO_CM_ 


O CO 


'O 






r-_ 












3 


£ C3 


O ! f*5 1 IO o* co 


■s 


3 




CO 


CO 


»-" C\f 


cd U-" 


CO 






•-" 












Ol *- 


o ooicm Sin 


■V 






N 


M 


r- r- 


r- ILO 


00 






'- 












5 


3 o" 

2 ° 


r-._ 




t- ICM 


ro 




M 






3 




'.0 




v 00 








ro 












CO 




WO* 


00 


•:•■} 








'.' 






■.-- 


M 










CM* 












5 


— 01 


<y> 


















_•■> 






























X 


h- | 






































VO 












LU 


—> 
































































■A 


















L0 


































DL 


















DL 
































3" 


c 

CD 


O 

u 














3 
a 


eg 

c 




3 




























ice 


E 


u 














o: 


c 


u_ 




























W TC 


Oj 












n 




E 


52 




























CD 

U 


3 


CO 

— 


i 


in 

I 










Q 

u 


_ 


>« 

CO 


i 


ta 














- 


Q 












0) 


E 


Ql 

o 




— 


c 










2 

03 


E 


CL 



— 


u_ 












LU 












CO — 


o 


= 


o 










CO - 


cz 


1 












X 


OS 








— 








D 


2 






"3 






— 


U 


Z) 


£ 












1- 


OS 












5 


c 

CD 

3 
> 


' 


■ 


.- 






C 




5 




E 

- 



> 
c 


■ 


■ 


.' 












5 

01 

C3 


3 

o 

>■ 






22 
u 
a> 
"o 


CD 

_l 

O 

3 


- 

CO 

CO 

a 


3 
U 
CD 

2 
u 


a 

z. 

CJ 

c 

CO 

c 


c 

CJ 

c 

TO 

- 


3 
a 






- 
_l 

O 

T- 



a 

- 
a. 


3 
O 


ex 

CJ 

c 

CO 

- 


CD 
O 

c 


3 
— 

a 






O 

z 






LU 


Q 






a. 


o 


< 


< 


LU 


u_ 


LL 


- 






O 


< 


< 


LU 


_ 


-I 


— 






— 






_i 


< 


















































o 


LU 


















































er: 


















































> 


< 








as 

3 


















gg 
























3 


CO 

LU 


























3 
E 

CC 
























2 


H 

Q 

LU 
0- 








o 


















U 
r 




~ 






















o 

CJ 

O 








S 
u 


3 
5> 
















CO 

2 


a 






















u 


X 








■ 


2 
















' 


- 
z 

0) 






















co 


LU 








- 


co 
















— 






















5 


Q 








15 



















M 






















z 


2: 








a 


d9 
















'55 


2 






















< 


ZD 








3_ 
















"= 



























u_ 
D 








u 

< 


3 

2 
















— 

CJ 

< 




LO 
EN 






















Z 


2 








— 


5 
















— 


3 














iro 
p 






< 

co 


o 






_2 

CO 


OD 


















c 
- 
_ 


in 

CO 
CM 



















32 



attachment II 
-fage 1 of 4 















io lo 


o o 




O IO io lo 


lO IO IO o 






' IO IO IO lO 


lO lO IO IO 


















o o 


o 


W» 




o 


O IO 


e^ 


IO o 


ee 


fc<3 








o 


O IO |«» 


lo 


3 


0-3- fe9- 










CO 

CO 


CD 






ojo 


CD 






o 


olo_ 






o_ 


o 












o_ 


o_ 


o_ 






o_ 


O 
















.C CD 






o" o" 


O 






L0~ 


LO" 1 O" 






LO" 


to 












If) 


LO" 


o" 






LO" 


in 














5 


D) r- 






LO 'LO 


LO 






CM 


cm in 






h- 


f- 












CM 


CM 


o 






r— 


r~- 
















3 r-T 






CM CM 


6/3 






CM 


CM 


&<r 






V* 


y=> 






















V* 


ee 














o 


i ° 






V* 


y> 








« 


V* 






















fc^ 


69 


y» 






















CO 


— O 


































































Q. 


h- c 


































































LU 


3 

-5 










































































c 
o 

To 

To 

LO 










c 

To 
To 

CO 










5 
To 
T5 

00 














c 
,2 
To 

CO 

w 










c 
^2 
To 

To 












LU 

_| 












c 


o 




O 




c 


CO 




5 




ro 

L=C 


co 




O 








c 


CO 




2 




ls: 


CO 




o 




h- 


< 
CO 

r- 
CO 












5 


T3 




5 




o 


— 




c 




o 


— 




co 








5 


T3 




a 




5 


~ 




5 




o 












g 


P 


>, 


c 




5 


CD 


>~ 


"^ 




5 


ca 


>yi 


£ 








5 


CO 


>■ 


- 




5 


ro 


>^ 


c 
















CD 

2 


en 

a 

D 


J5 

£ 

CO 


c 
o 




CD 

2 


O) 

Cl 
3 


2 

s 

CO 


5 




o 
Z 


5" 


CO 

CO 


c 










CD 

z 


3) 
Cl 

3 


To 

ro 
CO 


c 
2 




o 
2 


D5 

Cl 
D 


Tc 

ro 
CO 


ro 
O 




C/3 QT 






CO 






o 


To 


efl 






a 


CO 


c£ 






o 


"ro 


c£ 










o 


ca 


c>3 


To 

> 
o 
c 




ffl 


To 


ofl 






a 

HI 


LL 






O 
CD 

"o 






ro 
c 
E 


a 


T5 


CO 

> 



c 




3 
CL 

E 


a 
a 


"cz 


ca 

> 





3 




To 


CO 
> 










3 


o 
"5 


To 




3 
D. 

E 




To 


CO 

> 
cr 




o 


CO 













o 


CD 


o 




o 


o 


CJ 


5 




5 


o 


o 


5 








O 


ffl 


co 


CO 







a>i co 


CO 




LU 


LU 






CL 






o 


LU 


X 


cr: 




O 


LU 


_ 


EC 




U 


LU 


XiQ- 








(JILU 


— 


Ql 




U 


lu!x 


X 




— 1 ICC 


































































Oli- 


































































































































via 


































































>-z 


































































i-im 
























































c 










Z'5; 



































































If 
























































'w 






















































LD 










c 











Iq 














































"TO 










~x 
























































a 










LU 




















To 




















_ 














j2 










M 










o< 












— 










CO 








co 














< 










< 










ol-i 















0) 








I 
■a 


o 






H" 


CO 












S3 


CO 











CO 








to 10- 












2 


ro 
c 








3 
ro 






1 co 


3 












> 


3 








> 

To 


U 


3 
- 








B>u. 












a 

m 




c 








3 


u 


a> 

> 
< 
c 










cj 


Cl) 

> 
< 












0) 

6 


CO 

> 

< 
c 








a 
> 
< 


















■ 


a 








' 


J5 








1 


a 












1 


ro 








1 


ro 








It Q 












g 


0) 








ro 


o 








ro 


CD 












c 


B 








c 


o 








<IO 






a 






a 

0) 


a. 








ro 
m 


CL 








ro> 
CO 


lL 












CO 


CL 








coijt 

© in. 




















a 








CD 










a 














o 








— lo 








CO ICQ 






CO 




ICLliO 






|o. 


LO 






ILL iuo 










ID. liO 




ID. ILO 









33 



Attachment ] 
Pa?e 2 of U 













lo 


o o o 


'O IO IO IO 


OOIO 


O 


iO lO lO 'O 






IOIO 3 3 


















o 


o o 


o 


3 3 3 i3 


IOIO lo 


iy> 


IO IO !(/» t/» 






3 


3 00 00 












CO 

B 


CD 
O 




q 


O 3 


q 


IO o o o 




010 


3 






3 


3 












3 


O 
















3 CD 




o* 


o'o" 


o 


|o"lolo*lo" 




010* 


3 






If? 


If) 












3 


3' 
















3 






o '3 3 


o 




O |0 IOIO 




3 


3 






N 


s 












m 


W 


















3 /— r 






















ro 


ro 


N 






M 


M 












M 


M 
















"a 


S fo 




(A 


f» 


V) 


M 




M 


'-■-, 


(/> 


■y> 




M 


M 


M 






































i 1 


.— 05 




































































t— C 


































































X 
UJ 


3 
—3 








































































C 










CI 










- 










3 














C 
























o 










O 










O 










D 














a 
































































































































































a 










a 










eg 










03 














3 




























































































3 










3 










Q 










CO 














3 




























































































10 










." 










CO 










in 














in 














HI 










c 


B 




O 




c 


0) 




a 




2£ 


a> 




O 




3 


B 















B 













< 

00 

r- 

00 













— 




5 







— 




Z 




a 


•D 




O 




O 


■O 




c 








□ 


T3 




w 






o 










i 


~ 


~~. 


jz 




i 


2 


>^ 


c 




■: 


CO 


j>- 


c 




i 


3 


£, 


3 








| 


3 


>, 


— 






x 
- 

00 










B 

Z 


31 

a. 

X 


JD 

00 


c 
g 






Z 


CD 

3 

D 


CO 


c 
o 




1 
Z 


3 
3 
X 


3 

CO 


c 

D 




B 

X 


r- 

3 

X 


1 
3 

to 


3 
O 








z 


r- 
3 
2 



3 
X 


c 
g 






x 






CO 




2 


to 


00 






o 


on 


°o 






lo 


4 









on 


^r 


ro 

> 
r 
3 








B 


3 


t>3 








LU 


U_ 






o 

"o 




3 
a. 

E 


u 
o 


"5 


co 

> 
a 
c 




3 

a. 


CJ 

u 


to 


CO 

> 
o 




3 
a 






"ro 


CO 

> 
c 
3 




3 
3 

3 






n 








3 
3 

E 


y 



a 


3 
> 
3 






00 











01 


S 


b 




5 


CD 


0) 


J 




3 


a 


B 


c 




O 


1 


a 


B 











B 


0) 


5 






LU 


LU 






fX 




o 


LU 


X 


x 




O 


LU 


X 


2: 




u 


CD 


X 


X 




OILU 


X 


X 








U 


3 1 


X 


X 






_i 


X 
































































D 


X 


































































(— 


































































o 


Q 


































































>- 


Z 


































































-— 


UJ 


































































z 


0. 


































































X 


X 

UJ 










— 










— 














































2 


Q 










CD 










CO 














































o 
u 


UJ 

z 
Z 










LU 

00 










■o 

LU 

in 










a> 

3 





































u 


< 

_l 












a> 








51 


a> 








22 


■ 








"co 

— 


3 












5 


• 










co 


DL 










3 










3 








u 


3 










3 














3 






















3 










C 








3 


3 










3 












_3 


C 










U 

< 


D 












ID 








3 


ID 











B 










O 














w 










z 
x 

u. 










5 
Z 


> 
< 
3 









CO 


> 
< 

C 









CO 


> 
< 

C 








c/5 


> 
< 
3 












3 


> 
< 

c 










x 










1 


to 








1 


CO 








1 


CO 








1 


3 












1 


3 










Li. 


Q 










c 


O 








3 


0) 








3 


CJ 








3 


3 












3 


1 










2: 
< 


2 










co 


3 








CD 


£ 








CO 


£ 








CO 














~ 












O 




(I) 




B 


CL 








a> 


a. 











CL 








B 


LC 












3 


1c 














■C io 










3 










O 








-3 


3 












O 










co 


GQ J 




00 


10. ill) 






ID. liO 






in. 10 






ID- liO 










la. 


in 











34 



Attachment II 
faee 3 of 4 













o o io lo 


o 


O IO 






IO 






o 


o 




O IOIO 


O 







O 


O 





3 

















O IO 


«iO 




O 


o 


o 






IO 






o 


□ 













O 










O 





O 













10 

05 


OO 


o_ o 


l°- 




o 


o 


o 






o 






o 


o_ 













O 










O 





O 


q 












sz o> 


to" 


3 


o 




LO" 


IO 


o" 






lo" 






o" 


3~ 




0" 


LO" 


0" 


LO" 


0" 




0" 


O" 


0" 


0" 


0" 










3 


OJ »- 


r^ 


CD 


ILO 




CM 


CM 


o 






LO 






CO 










(V. 


LO 


r^ 










LO 





O 















i3 (— r 


y» 


feO- 




fa=» 














CM 






T 


LO 






<bO 


co 


y-i 






ro 


CM' 


-r 














T3 


2° 












fa=> 


to 


y> 








y» 






e/j 


Crt 




yj 




to 




yy 




<y> 


fc=r 


m 


fc/> 


ys 










C 


r 1 05 




































































i— c 


































































X 

LU 


3 






































































c 










c 


















05 

3 

CD 

o 
"5o 

3 
LU 

o3 

05 
3 
O 
CD 


3 




3 












3 






















o 










o 


















O 

















O 


























































































ffl 










ra 


















£ 


CO 




n 












ra 






















75 










15 


















U 


"5 




15 












15 


















































< 








































oo 










CO 


















C/5 




CO 












CO 














LU 

_J 








c 


05 




o 






Q) 










o 






i£ 


3 




3 


CO 

CD 




O 






3 


CD 




g 






h- 


< 

CO 

h- 

co 








o 


"O 




5 




o 


X3 










5 






O 


O 




5 


~ 




CD 






O 


"3 




5 






O 








5 


CO 


>N 


c 




5 


CD 


>. 














5 


$ 




5 


CO 


>. 


3 






5 


CO 


>~ 


E 














o 
Z 


35 

Q. 


2 

CO 

CO 


c 
o 




CD 

z 


35 
Q. 

D 


CD 
CO 

CO 








3 

o 






CD 

z 


O 
Z 





Z 


30 

3_ 


3 

15 

CO 


3 
O 






CD 

z 


30 

a 




3 

CO 


3 








DC 






C/5 


S 


B 


oS 






s 


To 


c£ 














CO 


CD 




CD 


15 


Bfl 


CO 

> 


3 






a> 


15 


o« 








Q 

LU 


ll. 






O 

05 

'o 


3 
Q. 

E 


O 
O 


To 


TO 

> 

o 
c 




3 
D. 

E 




"ro 








co 
> 
o 

3 






3 
3L 

E 


3 
Q. 

E 




3 
Q. 





15 


< 




3 

Cc 

E 






15 


CO 

> 



3 


< 




o 


CO 






o 


CD 


05 


CD 




o 


CD 











CO 






o 







5 





CD 


CD 


D 







CD 


CD 


05 


Q 




LU 


UJ 






CL 


O 


LU 


X 


a: 




o 


LU 


I 








cc 






o 


O 




O 


LU 


I 


cr 


< 




O 


UU 


z 


cc: 


< 




_J 


































































_l 

o 


3 


































































l— 


































































o 


Q 


































































> 


■z. 


































































>- 


LU 


































































2 


CL 


































































3 X 


































































|uu 


































































8 1 








c 
O 

' — 










30 

"3 

CO 


















CD 

•a 


















CO 












ok 








3 










i2 



















5 


















3 
3. 

E 

CO 



co 

E 

CO, 
"3 
< 












co|Q- 
ob 
zz 

<p 








£ 

3 
00 

c 


CD 
3 



> 

< 

c 
n 

CD 








< 

n 

3 
00 

> 

3 


CD 
3 
3 
CD 
> 
< 
3 
CO 
CD 










CO 

u 
O 


09 

3 
3 
O 
> 
< 

n 
o 




CO 
3 

a 

E 

CO 

a 

3 




3 

5 
> 
< 

3 

.3 

B 




CO 
3 
3_ 

E 

CO 
O 
>> 
3 
CO 

E 

05 


CD 

CD 

CO 

>l 

-3 
T3 










CD 
O 

CO 

CO 



>^ 

CO 










<IO 






05 


CO 
01 


SI 
O 








DO 

CD 


-3 

a 

o 










a 

a 


a 




n 

CD 


.3 

c_ 

3) 




LU 
O 

LO 










3 
-3 

O 




CD 

CO 










CO ICQ 






CO 


d. no 






10- 


LO 








ID. in 


ID. ILO 




<|f- 










—1 













.2 o 



35 



.-.zzacr.-^r.: . 
.-'a?e if of 4 











OlO o O ir<- 








. 


31 


o 










o 


O 


O O LO 








Ifl 


to 


CM 
CM 











O 


q 


q 


OlO 


-r 








-r 


•-_ 










sz o 


o" 


IT) 


LO'lo" 


O* 








if) 


N 










a 


C^i *~ 


IO 


cv 


-- o 


m 








-. 


•-- 


CO 










3 /— T 










ft 








r. 


ro 










■a 

5 


r 1 CJ 


M 


■A 


s> 


A 










- 


01 


CO 

o 








_ 

X 
LU 


i — c 






















CM 








3 
—> 






















</* 












O 
















to 

3 


— 
- 

5 
u 

c 

— 


5 

5" 












gg 












































— 




co" 

5 
_5 

5" 


1- 
o 

5 

r- 
■J) 

D 


HI 

_l 
< 

CO 

H 
co 

= 






in 

o 


5 
| 

B 

z 

a 


8 
TJ 

TO 

a 

TO 
O 


- 

OS 


5 

r 

c 

c 
g 

> 












■•: 
■ 

■a 

C 

c 
n 

a 


co 

M 

a) 

3 
- 

-- 

B 


UJ| • 






5^ 


H" 


a 


It 





< 








o 


"t 


S 


O co 






o 


a 


B 


o 


o 


3 











r 


o 


UJ IW 






ol 


U 


LLI 


— 


o: 


< 








- 


- 


1- 


—i d: 






























rig 


























































UK 






























>-S 






























- HI 






























z Q- 






























z> x 






























s& 






























SH 




























































o,< 








■ 






















uu 








D 


s 




















ui\o- 








c~l 2 




















olQ 








CO 


CO 




















zz 








O 


z 




















< 3 








- 


o 




















^iu. 








5 


"« 




















U-IQ 








o 


£ 




















Z 2 

<tO 






© 


r 
£ 




5 

o 

3 




















CO CD | 




CO 


3 


CO 





















w 



36 



Attachment III 




VICE CHANCELLOR OF FINANCE & ADMINISTRATION 

33 GOUGH STREET . SAN FRANCISCO. CA 54 103-1 2 14 • 415. 241 .ZZZB • FAX 4 15. 24 I .£344 



To: Alan Gibson, Budget Analyst's Office 

From: Peter Goldstei novice Chancellor Finance & Administration 

Re: Bond Appropriation for the Community College District 

Date: September 17, 1999 

In response to your request I am providing additional information supporting the 
appropriation of the Community College District's bond proceeds. 

As you have noted, while the S20.3 million allocation request has not changed, 
the amount in each of the individual categories varies from the information 
presented in February 1999 when the Board of Supervisors authorized the sale 
of the bonds. There are several reasons for the changes. 

First, the full cost of items necessary for the acquisition of properties for the 
proposed permanent campuses for the Mission and ChinatownANorth Beach 
areas is about 5900,000 more than the figure in the February report. These costs 
are related to the preparation of the environmental impact reports and financing 
costs for the properties. As final totals were not available in February 1999, they 
were not submitted as part of the February request. Second, the need to 
proceed with the College District's technology project is more urgent due to 
networking needs related to the College District's management system and 
instructional programs. As a result about $500,000 more than the amount in the 
February report is now allocated for technology. To absorb these two increases 
while staying within the total allocation available in the first sale, the College 
District has reduced the amounts allocated to renovation and health and safety 
projects by a total of about $1 .5 million. These changes do not alter the overall 
allocation of the College District's $50 million bond package. Finally, costs 
initially associated with the College District's administration of these bond 
projects are now distributed into each project category and are no longer listed 
as a separate item. 

Thank you for your assistance and do not hesitate to contact me at 241 .2229 if 
you need any additional information. 

Cc: Dr. Phillip Day 

Laura Opsahl-Borderon 



BOARD OF TRUSTEES 
LAWRENCE WONG. PRESIDENT • DR. ANITA CRIER. VICE PRESIDENT 
ROBERT E. BURTON • JAMCSHASKELLMAVO.il. ■ RODEL E. RODlS 



OR. NATALIE BERG 
ROBERT P. VARNI 



20 'd W-£Z TfS STfr 



37 



NouyaisiNiuati 



co:t>T 6SST-AT-C33 



brr^-B^-x^:* 12=04 ftDMINISTr- 



A::?":'hrer:: ;y 
;e 1 of 2 




VICE CHANCELLOR OF FINANCE & ADMINISTRAT ION 

33 COUCH STREET . SAN FRANCI&CC, £a &< tC5- 1 1 I * • «IS. 2 A I. 2228 • FAX I I 5 2< : :w< 



To: Alan Gibson, Budoet Analyst's Office 

From: Peter GoIdsteinyWe Chancellor Finance & Administration 

Re: Bond Appropriation for the Community College District 

Date: September 3, 1999 

In response to your request I am providing information supporting the 
appropriation of the Community College District's bond proceeds. 

The total amount the Distncthas advanced as of June 30, 1999 is $1 2.377 
million, or about 60.93% of the $20,313,225 appropriation. These expenditures 
fall into four categories covered by the 1997 ballot measure. The largest portion, 
S9.095 million or about 73.5% of the advanced funds were spent on the 
acquisition of sites for permanent campuses for the Mission and 
Chinatown/North Beach neighborhoods. While the College delayed these 
acquisitions as long as possible, the sellers of the properties refused to wait for 
Proposition D litigation to make its way through the court system. Consequently 
the district faced a difficult decision, issue its own debt in the form of Certificates 
of Participation (COPs) and bear the financial strain of making payments on that 
debt until bonds could be issued, or lose the locations it had identified as sites 
for neighborhoods that can benefit greatly from the College's offerings. Working 
closely with bond counsel, the Board of Trustees made the choice to take the 
actions needed to secure the locations for permanent campuses for the Mission 
and Chinatown/North Beach neighborhoods. 

The second largest category of advanced expenditures is the combination of 
health & safety upgrades and renovation projects. These two combined totaled 
S 2.4 million or about 19% of the advanced amount. These expenditures were 
sometimes necessary because of serious threats to the well being of the 
College's students and staff as was the case with impending failure of water or 
gas pipes. However, more frequently this spending was needed to ensure that 
the College did not lose the opportunity to leverage additional state capital funds 
for San Francisco. By advancing these funds prior to state-imposed deadlines 
for projects related to items such as windows and roofs, the Coliege was able to 
draw down generally between 50% and 75% in matching funds from the state. 



DOARD OF TRUSTEES 

LAWRENCE WO*G, PRESIDENT • DP. ANITA GRIER. VICE PRESIDENT . DR. NATALIE 6ERS 

ROBERT E BURTON • JAMES HASKELL MAYO. II. • ROOEL E. ROOlS • ROBERT P. VARNI 

DR. PHILIP R. OAY, JR.. CHANCELLOR 



33 



i-iun j n i b l riftT I ON 

Attachment Iy 
■fage 2 of 2 

In two particular cases, by advancing funds the College was able ensure that a 
total of SS.2 million in state funding for capital projects was saved for San 
Francisco. In the first case, by advancing about $950,000 for additional 
classrooms, the College was able to secure more than S4.4 million in state funds 
for remodeling one of its largest classroom facilities, in a second case by 
advancing $225,000 for architectural work, the College was able to secure more 
than S3. 8 million in state capital improvement funds for new quarters for its 
electricians, plumbers, carpenters and gardeners. 

The third category of advanced spending related to computer networking issues 
vital to the function of the College. These expenditures totaled about $882,000, 
or about 7.1% of the $12,277 million advanced. This spending was needed to 
bring minimal connectivity to College staff who need access to the College's 
main management information system, and to bring web access to one 
instructional building. It was also necessary to accomplish much of the final 
design work for the larger computer network project that makes up the single 
largest commitment the College made to San Francisco's voters in the June 
1997 election. By advancing $440,000 funds network architecture, the College 
will be able to move forward more quickly toward building the network and 
thereby bringing technology into more of its classrooms. 



The summary of planned expenditures totals $7,935 million, or about 39.07 per 
cent of the $20,313,226 appropriation request. The proposed all fall under the 
categories the College committed to address in the June 1997 ballot measure: 
health and safety, technology infrastructure, renovations, childcare, and ADA 
improvements. The College expects to fully expend the $7,935 million within the 
next eighteen months. 



Thank you for your assistance and do not hesitate to contact me at 241 .2229 if 
you need any additional information. 



Cc: Dr. Phillip Day 

Laura Opsahl-Bordercm 



TOTAL P. 63 

39 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

September 22, 1999 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

Item 6 - File 99-1644 

Note: This item was continued by the Finance and Labor Committee at its 
meeting of September 15, 1999. 



Department: 
Item: 



Amount: 
Description: 



Mayor's Office of Public Finance 

Resolution (a) approving the form of, and authorizing the 
execution and delivery by the City and County of San 
Francisco of Equipment Lease Supplement No. 8, between 
the City and County of San Francisco Finance 
Corporation, as lessor, and the City and County of San 
Francisco, as lessee, with respect to equipment to be used 
for City purposes, and providing for the related Certificate 
of Approval and a continuing Disclosure Certificate; (b) 
approving the issuance of Series 1999A Lease Revenue 
Bonds by said nonprofit corporation in an amount not to 
exceed $9,800,000; (c) providing for reimbursement to the 
City of certain City expenditures incurred prior to the 
issuance of Series 1999A Lease Revenue Bonds; (d) 
providing for the execution of documents in connection 
therewith; and (e) ratifying actions previously taken. 

Not to exceed $9,800,000 

In June of 1990, San Francisco voters approved 
Proposition C, a Charter amendment which authorized 
the Board of Supervisors to authorize and approve the 
lease-financing of equipment purchases for the City 
through a nonprofit public benefit corporation, the San 
Francisco Finance Corporation. The equipment leased by 
the City is purchased by the San Francisco Finance 
Corporation with the proceeds of lease revenue bonds. 

According to Ms. Sarah Hollenbeck of the Mayor's Office 
of Public Finance, the City has issued lease revenue 
bonds for the procurement of equipment on an annual 
basis since FY 1990-91, with the exception of FY 1996-97 
when such issuance was delaj'ed until the following fiscal 
year. The Mayor's Office is now requesting authorization 
to issue up to $9,800,000 in City and County of San 
Francisco Corporation Lease Revenue Bonds, Series 
1999A (hereafter referred to as "Series 1999A Lease 
Revenue Bonds"), for the acquisition, construction, and 
installation of equipment previously approved by the 
Board of Supervisors in the FY 1999-2000 budget. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

40 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

September 22, 1999 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



Interest rates on lease revenue bonds issued by nonprofit 
corporations are generally lower than the interest on 
other financing instruments, because of the tax-exempt 
status of investments in non-profit corporations. 
Proposition C requires that the San Francisco Finance 
Corporation not issue lease revenue bonds for equipment 
purchase unless the Controller certifies that the interest 
costs to the City will be lower through the San Francisco 
Finance Corporation than through the other financing 
instruments such as third party vendors. Under the 
proposed resolution, the Controller is required to certify 
that the interest rates are lower through the San 
Francisco Finance Corporation prior to the sale of the 
proposed Series 1999A Lease Revenue Bonds. According 
to Ms. Peg Stevenson of the Controller's Office, the 
Controller has certified that the interest rates to the city 
would be lower through the San Francisco Financing 
Corporation than through other financing instruments 
(see Comment 5 below). 

In accordance with Proposition C, the total outstanding 
indebtedness of the San Francisco Finance Corporation 
may not exceed a principal amount of $20 million at any 
given time beginning in FY 1990-91, with the limit 
increasing by five percent in each subsequent fiscal year. 
The maximum amount of allowable indebtedness in FY 
1999-2000 is $31,026,564 according to Ms. Hollenbeck. 

The Board of Supervisors has previously authorized the 
issuance by the San Francisco Finance Corporation of up 
to $73,569,707 in lease revenue bonds, of which 
$67,315,000 was actually issued, to finance the purchase 
of equipment, as follows: 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

41 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

September 22, 1999 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 





Authorized 


Fiscal Year 


Lease 


Revenue Bonds 


1990-91 




$ 7,304,707 


1991-92 


Up to 


10,000,000 


1992-93 


Up to 


10,200,000 


1993-94 


Up to 


7,000,000 


1994-95 


Up to 


6,500,000 


1995-96 


Up to 


7,065,000 


1996-97 







1997-98 


Up to 


14,000,000 


1998-99 


Up to 


11.500.000 



TOTAL Up to $73,569,707 

As noted above, the San Francisco Finance Corporation 
has been authorized to issue up to $73,569,707 since FY 
1990-91 in lease revenue bonds to procure equipment on 
behalf of the City. According to the Mayor's Office of 
Public Finance, the actual amount of lease revenue bonds 
issued by the San Francisco Finance Corporation, the 
amounts which have been repaid, and the outstanding 
indebtedness as of October 1, 1999 will be as follows: 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

42 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

September 22, 1999 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



Series 1991A Bonds 

Lease Purchase Revenue Bonds Issued S7, 020, 000 

Repayment to Date 7.020.000 

Outstanding Indebtedness: Series 1991A: $ 

Series 1992A Bonds 

Lease Purchase Revenue Bonds Issued $5,555,000 

Repayment to Date 5.555.000 

Outstanding Indebtedness: Series 1992A: 

Series 1993A Bonds 

Lease Purchase Revenue Bonds Issued $10,200,000 

Repayment to Date 10.020.000 

Outstanding Indebtedness: Series 1993A: 180,000 

Series 1994A Bonds 

Lease Purchase Revenue Bonds Issued $6,850,000 

Repayment to Date 6,280.000 

Outstanding Indebtedness: Series 1994A: 570,000 

Series 1995A Bonds 

Lease Purchase Revenue Bonds Issued $6,075,000 

Repayment to Date 6.055.000 

Outstanding Indebtedness: Series 1995A: 20,000 

Series 1996A Bonds 

Lease Purchase Revenue Bonds Issued $7,065,000 

Repayment to Date 6,425.000 

Outstanding Indebtedness: Series 1996A: 640,000 

Series 1997A Bonds $13,715,000 

Lease Purchase Revenue Bonds Issued 4,320.000 

Payment to date 

Outstanding Indebtedness: Series 1997A: 9,395,000 

Series 199SA Bonds $10,835,000 

Lease Purchase Revenue Bonds Issued 1.490.000 

Payment to Date 

Outstanding Indebtedness: Series 199SA: 9.345.000 

Projected Total Outstanding Indebtedness at 

10/01/99 $20,150,000 

Total Allowable Indebtedness S31.026.564 

Total Allowable Indebtedness Which Will Still 

Be Available at 10/01/99 S10.S76,564 

For FY 1999-2000, Proposition C established $31,026,564 
as the maximum level of allowable indebtedness. As of 
October 1, 1999, it is projected that the amount of 
outstanding Proposition C indebtedness will be 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

43 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

September 22, 1999 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



S20, 150,000, resulting in an available balance of 
$10,876,564 in unused debt capacity for equipment lease 
financing in FY 1999-2000. 

The proposed resolution would authorize the issuance of 
new Series 1999A Lease Revenue Bonds in FY 1999-2000 
in an amount not to exceed $9,800,000. This is within the 
San Francisco Finance Corporation's projected October 1, 
1999 unused debt capacity for equipment lease financing 
under Proposition C of $10,876,564 for FY 1999-2000. 
Ms. Hollenbeck estimates that the Series 1999A Lease 
Pee venue Bonds will be sold on a competitive basis on 
October 20, 1999. 

According to Ms. Hollenbeck, the bond trustee for the San 
Francisco Finance Corporation will act as a bank for 
equipment purchases. Ms. Hollenbeck explains that 
various City departments have budgeted the annual lease 
payment within their FY 1999-2000 departmental 
budgets, as previously approved by the Board of 
Supervisors. Ms. Hollenbeck reports that the amount of 
the annual lease payments for the proposed Series 1999A 
Lease Revenue Bonds in FY 1999-2000 is approximately 
$174,000. This amount has been approved in the FY 
1999-2000 budget under the General City Responsibility 
budget. A total of $10,923,000, including principal of 
$9,595,000 and interest of $1,328,000, would be paid over 
the six year term of the leases for the equipment listed in 
the Attachment provided by Ms. Hollenbeck. Ms. 
Hollenbeck reports that, pending authorization of the 
proposed resolution, the San Francisco Finance 
Corporation will sell bonds to prospective investors and 
will subsequently purchase the equipment on behalf of 
the City using the proceeds from the lease revenue bond 
funds. City departments will then make annual lease 
payments to the San Francisco Finance Corporation, 
which in turn will use these funds to repay the lease 
revenue bond interest and redemption. 

In addition, the proposed resolution provides for (a) 
reimbursement to the City of up to $194,116 for bond 
issuance costs related to the proposed issuance of the 
Series 1999A Lease Revenue Bonds which have to be 
made prior to the actual date of issuance, (b) the 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

September 22, 1999 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

execution of documents needed to implement the proposed 
resolution, and (c) the ratification of actions previously 
taken. 

The annual budgets of City departments must include the 
amount of the City's annual lease-purchase payments 
(including principal and interest) for equipment procured 
through the San Francisco Finance Corporation. Since 
these payments are required under the terms of the lease- 
purchase agreement with the San Francisco Finance 
Corporation, the annual payments become fixed costs of 
City departments for the term of the lease revenue bond 
repayment period, once the equipment has been procured 
and acquired by the San Francisco Finance Corporation. 
As noted above, City departments will make lease 
payments to the San Francisco Financing Corporation, 
which in turn will use such funds to repay the bond funds. 

Comments: 1. The Attachment to this report, provided by Ms. 

Hollenbeck, contains a list of the equipment to be 
acquired, including (a) the applicable departments, (b) the 
number of units, and (c) the equipment costs, as 
previously approved by the Board of Supervisors in the 
FY 1999-2000 budget. As shown in the Attachment, total 
equipment costs are $8,005,943. 

The estimated total project costs of $9,595,000 in Series 
1999A Lease Revenue Bonds are as follows: 

Equipment Costs SS. 005,943 

Required Reserve Fund 1 959,500 

Bond Issuance Costs 194,116 

Capitalized Interest 2 435.441 

TOTAL $9,595,000 



1 Lease Revenue bonds have a legally required Reserve Fund equal, in this case, to 10 percent of the 
principal amount of the bonds. 

2 Pursuant to State law, the City cannot make any interest payments on lease revenue bonds until 
the City has received the equipment. However, interest on the lease revenue bonds begins accruing 
when the bonds are sold regardless of when the equipment is eventually purchased and received by 
the City. Therefore, capitalized interest, estimated in the amount of $435,441. must be paid from 
proceeds of the Series 1999A Revenue Lease Bonds until such a time as the equipment is actually 
received by the City and interest payments can be made from funds appropriated in the City budget. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

45 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

September 22, 1999 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



2. The actual interest costs to the City of the proposed 
equipment lease-purchases cannot be determined 
precisely, because the interest rate will depend on 
prevailing financial market interest rates when the Series 
1999A Lease Revenue Bonds are actually sold. Interest 
costs will also vary for each equipment item purchased 
based on the number of years in the repayment period for 
the item, which cannot exceed the useful life of the 
equipment. 

Ms. Hollenbeck estimates that, if the proposed Series 
1999A Lease Revenue Bonds are sold in a principal 
amount of approximately $9,595,000 at an estimated 
annual interest rate of 4.6 percent (based on current 
financial market interest rates), and if they are based on 
the expected repaj r ment period of six years, the City's 
total principal and interest cost would be approximately 
$10,923,000 over the life of the Series 1999A Lease 
Revenue Bonds. Based on these estimates, as previously 
noted, the City's costs over the life of the Series 1999A 
Lease Revenue Bonds would be $9,595,000 in principal 
and $1,328,000 in interest costs, for a total cost of 
$10,923,000 over six years. 

3. The proposed resolution would provide for a 
Continuing Disclosure Agreement. According to Ms. 
Hollenbeck, Federal law requires all cities and counties 
which issue tax-exempt debt to file an Annual Report 
with a national repository for the benefit of the investors. 
The Annual Report would contain the following: (1) the 
financial statements of the San Francisco Financing 
Corporation and the City; (2) the status of the project; (3) 
a summary of budgeted General Fund revenues and 
appropriations; (4) a summary of assessed valuation of 
taxable property; and (5) a summary of outstanding and 
authorized but unissued tax supported debt. 

4. The use of lease financing is equivalent to borrowing 
funds, with resultant interest costs, to purchase 
equipment. Since such financing requires fixed, 
mandatory lease payments by City departments over 
several years, the use of lease-purchases "locks in" 
departmental expenditures for future years resulting in a 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

46 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committ< • 

September 22, 1999 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



reduction in the amount of discretionary monies in the 
City's budget in future years. However, the Mayor's 
Office recommends the use of lease-financing with 
Proposition C bonds for the City's major equipment 
purchases in order to spread the equipment costs over 
several years, corresponding to the City's beneficial use of 
the equipment. 

5. Under the proposed resolution, the Controller is 
required to certify, prior to the sale of the proposed Series 
1999A Lease Revenue Bonds, that the interest rates are 
lower to the City through the San Francisco Finance 
Corporation than through other financing instruments. 
Ms. Peg Stevenson of the Controller's Office advises that 
the Controller reviewed the estimated interest rates for 
comparable equipment lease-financing that would be 
charged by various companies such as Ford Motor Credit, 
which would charge 5.25 percent annually for a 
comparable six year term of borrowing, and IBM, which 
would charge 5.39 percent annually for a six year term of 
borrowing. Based on that review, the Controller has 
certified in relation to the proposed Series 1999A Lease 
Revenue Bonds that if those bonds are sold on October 20, 
1999, the estimated 4.6 percent annual interest rate that 
would be charged by the San Francisco Finance 
Corporation for a six year term of borrowing for the 
subject equipment to be leased would be lower than the 
interest rates that the surveyed companies would charge. 

6. Based on the data reviewed, and in accordance with 
the Charter, as noted in Comment No. 5 above, the 
Controller has certified that the estimated interest rate of 
4.6 percent to be paid by the City would be lower through 
the San Francisco Financing Corporation than through 
other financing: instruments. 



Recommendation: Approve the proposed resolution. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

47 



Attachment 



City and County of San Francisco Finance Corporation 
Series 1999A Equipment List 







#of 


Per Unit 




nppartment 


Equipment 


Units 


Casl 


Total Cost 


Administrative Services 


Cargo Van 




23,000 


23,000 


Administrative Services 


Passenger lift van 




35,000 


35.000 


Aduit Probation 


Sedan-compact (CNG) 




22,000 


44,000 


Animal Care 


1 Ton outfitted van 




35,000 


35,000 


City Attorney 


Computer LAN Equipment 




273,901 


273,901 


San Francisco General Hospital 


Fluorcscan imaging sysiem 




69,105 


69,105 


San Francisco General Hospital 


BTE Primus work Simulator 




53,162 


53,162 


San Francisco General Hospital 


TEE Probe 




48,875 


48,875 


San Francisco General Hospital 


Automatic Coverslipper and Fume Controller 




33,092 


33.092 


San Francisco General Hospital 


Adult Ventilator 




30.380 


30.380 


San Francisco General Hospital 


Humphrey Visual Field Analyzer II 




29.591 


29.591 


San Francisco General Hospital 


Osteopower Modular Handpiece 




21.728 


21.728 


Medical Examiner 


1 Ton w/ lift van 




37,000 


37,000 


Medical Examiner 


Gas Generator 




45,000 


45,000 


Muni 


1 Ton w/ lift van 


2 


27,000 


54,000 


Muni 


Forklifts 


2 


27,000 


54,000 


Muni 


2-1/2 Ton scissor truck w' hyrailer for over power line repair 


2 


120,000 


240.000 


Muni 


Heavy duty currency collection van 


3 


30.000 


90.000 


Muni 


LRV jack & rerailer 


1 


75.000 


75.000 


Muni 


Cargo Van - outfitted 


2 


25.000 


50.000 


Muni 


LRV repair truck 25K GVWR 300hp diesel 


1 


110.000 


110.000 


Muni 


Overhead Line Maintenance Truck 


1 


240.000 


240,000 


Fire 


Van 


2 


24,500 


49,000 


Fire 


Ambulances 


3 


136,200 


408.600 


Fire 


Triple combination pumpers 


3 


255,978 


767,934 


Fire 


Mini pumpers 


1 


76.000 


76.000 


Fire 


Aerial ladder truck 


1 


458,315 


458,315 


Fire 


Mid-size sedan 


10 


21,000 


210,000 


Public Health 


Cisco catalyst 8500 & 5000 campus switch routers 


1 


140,000 


140,000 


Juvenile Probation 


Compact sedan (CNG) 


6 


22.000 


132.000 


Juvenile Probation 


Passenger van 


3 


26,500 


79.500 


Juvenile Probation 


Car w/ security cage 


1 


25,500 


25.500 


Public Defender 


Minivan 


1 


26,500 


26,500 


Police 


Sedans - marked 


40 


29,694 


1,187.760 


Police 


Sedans - unmarked 


50 


24,250 


1,212,500 


Parking & Traffic 


Three wheelers 


25 


17,500 


437.500 


Parking & Traffic 


1 Ton utility truck (signage repair) 


1 


45,000 


45,000 


Parking & Traffic 


1/2 Ton utility truck (painting) 


1 


22.000 


22.000 


Parking & Traffic 


1/2 Ton utility truck (signal repair) 


1 


35,000 


35.000 


Parking & Traffic 


1 1/2 Ton utility truck (meter repair) 


1 


23,000 


23,000 


Parking & Traffic 


Vans - outfitted 


5 


26.400 


132.000 


Parking & Traffic 


Midsize sedan (CNG) 


1 


24.000 


24,000 


Recreation & Park 


Garbage truck 


1 


140,000 


140.000 


Recreation & Park 


Rubber tire backhoe 


1 


78.000 


78,000 


Recreation & Park 


Ford F150 


1 


25.000 


25,000 


Recreation & Park 


3/4 Ton pick-up Truck 


1 


53,000 


53.000 


Recreation & Park 


3/4 Ton pick-up Truck 


1 


29,500 


29.500 


Recreation & Park 


3/4 Ton pick-up Truck 


1 


29.000 


29.000 


Recreation & Park 


3/4 Ton 4x4 pick-up truck 


1 


27,500 


27.500 


Recreation & Park 


1 Ton dump truck 


1 


20,000 


20,000 


Recreation & Park 


Dump truck 


2 


60,000 


120.000 


Recreation & Park 


2 3/4 pick-up truck 


1 


37.500 


37,500 


Telecommunications 


Compact car (CNG) 


2 


22.000 


44,000 


Telecommunications 


Wiring & telecom trucks 


3 


30,000 


90,000 


Telecommunications 


Winng & telecom trucks 


1 


38.500 


38.500 


Telecommunications 


Wiring & telecom trucks 


1 


25.000 


35.000 


Telecommunications 


Grumen cable sohcinc van 


1 


55.000 


55.000 


8.005.943 



48 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

September 22, 1999 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



Item 7 -File 1581 
Department: 

Item: 

Amount: 
Source of Funds: 
Description: 



Budget: 



Department of Public Works (DPW) 
Public Utilities Commission (PUC) 

Resolution approving tbe expenditure of funds for the 
emergency work to replace a structurally inadequate 
sewer on Broadwa} 7 from Pierce Street to Scott Street. 

$148,925 

FY 1999-2000 PUC Repair and Replacement Fund 

On July 16, 1999, Public Utilities Commission (PUC) 
Sewer Operations identified an emergency sewer 
condition on Broadway from Scott to Pierce Streets. 410 
feet of the existing 12 inch diameter vitrified clay pipe 
sewers were broken and contained sections which had 
collapsed. The PUC determined that the remaining sewer 
at that location might collapse if emergency repairs were 
not performed, endangering the health and safety of the 
public and damaging public and private property. In 
accordance with Section 6.30 of the Administrative Code, 
the President of the PUC declared an emergency on Jul}- 
16, 1999. A contract was awarded to J.M.B. Construction, 
Inc., in the amount of $111,775. 

The total estimated project cost is $148,925. A summary 
of this budget is as follows: 



DPW Bureau of Engineering 
DPW Bureau of Construction Management 
Construction Contract 
Total Project Cost 



S 



19,150 

18,000 

111.775 



$148,925 



The Attachment, provided by the DPW, details the DPW 
Bureau of Engineering and Bureau of Construction 
Management costs. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

49 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

September 22, 1999 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



Comments: 



1. According to Mr. P.T. Law of DPW, invitations for 
proposals were faxed to 20 contractors on July 21, 1999, 
and 2 quotations were received on July 23, 1999, as 
follows: 

LBE/MBE 
Contractor Quote Amount Status 

J.M.B. Construction Inc. $111,775 LBEAVBE 

A. Ruiz Construction, Inc. $115,361 LBE/MBE 



2. Mr. Law states that, of the 410 feet of the damaged 
sewer requiring immediate repair, PUC determined that 
23 feet of the existing sewer could be abandoned because 
it no longer serviced side sewers. Therefore, the 
construction contract was for the replacement of 387 feet 
of the 12-inch diameter vitrified clay pipe sewer on 
Broadway from Scott Street to Pierce Street. 

3. According to Mr. Law, repair of the subject sewer began 
on July 29, 1999, and was completed on August 18, 1999. 



Recommendation: 



Approve the proposed resolution. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

50 



yOl' ^3 



^ruruj OUC HTLiXHJ^l'wb -r tiJ iji £1^=1 



Cost Breakdown for ( J.O. #0111J, Contract #CW-252E) 
Broadway Sewer System Improvement 



Attachment 
9/1/39 



Bureau of Engineering 



Classification 


Trtie 


Ri 


its 


Hours 




Cost 


5504 
5233 
5202 
5365 
. 5381 
1428 


Project Manager II 

Associate Civil Engineer 

Junior Civil Engineer 

Civil engineering Associate II 

Engineering Student Trainee II 

Secretary 


S 
$ 

s 
$ 
s 

s 


82 
75 
50 
60 
33 

43 


9 

34 

98 

125 

45 

43 


S 

s 
s 

s 
s 

s 


S23 
2,550 
4,900 
7,500 
1,518 
1,849 



Rounded: $ 



19,145 
19,150 



Bureau of Construction Management 



Classification 


Title 




Rate 


hours 




Cost 


5210 


Senior Civil Engineer 


S 


100 


9 


S 


900 


5208 


Civil Engineer 


$ 


80 


13 


S 


1,040 


5204 


Assistant Civil Engineer 


s 


59 


133 


s 


7,847 


5318 


Construction Inspector 


$ 


74 


111 


s 


8,214 



Total S 
Rounded: $ 



18,001 
18,000 



51 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 
September 22, 1999 Finance Committee Meeting 



Item 8 -File 99-1582 

Department: 

Item: 



Amount: 
Source of Funds: 

Description: 



Port 



Hearing to consider the release of reserved funds in the 
amount of $25,500 to be used to perform construction on 
portions of the new fire safety system at Pier 50, as 
follows: 

(a) install a new eight inch fire main section that will 
serve Pier 50 Shed A, 

(b) pay for design and engineering fees related to the 
construction of the new twelve inch fire main section 
that will serve Pier 50; and 

(c) pay for engineering services to review the plans and 
specifications for new fire sprinklers to be installed as 
part of the fire safety system improvements at Pier 50. 

$25,500 

Capital Project Appropriation for relocation of the Port's 
Maintenance Facility from Pier 46B to Pier 50 

In June of 1997, the Board of Supervisors approved a 
Supplemental Appropriation allocating $7,550,000 from 
loan proceeds obtained from the Canadian Imperial Bank 
of Commerce, for a capital improvement project to 
relocate the Port's Maintenance Facility from its current 
location at Pier 46B to Pier 50 (File 101-96-83). Of the 
funds appropriated in the amount of $7,550,000, the 
Board of Supervisors reserved $6,052,714 pending 
submission of final contract details. 

Of the total funds reserved in the amount of $6,052,714, 
the Port proposed the expenditure of $547,123 for fire 
safety system improvements at Pier 50. Of the $547,123 
which was earmarked for the fire safety system, $460,000 
was for the construction of demising walls, which serve as 
fire walls, in Pier 50 Shed A and the remaining monies in 
the amount of $87,123 were earmarked for general fixe 
safety system improvements. However, in January of 
1998, the Port Commission determined that the demising 
walls were not necessary. The Port reallocated $460,000, 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 
September 22, 1999 Finance Committee Meeting 



which had been earmarked for construction of 
demising walls, for the installation of fire sprinklers. 



the 



The proposed release of reserved funds in the amount of 
$25,500, from the reserve of $547,123 noted above, would 
authorize the Port to expend the funds to perform the 
proposed construction on portions of the new fire safety 
svstem at Pier 50. 



Budget: 



Installation of 8" fire main 

Engineering services for the 12" fire main 

Plan check and review 



$14,000 
7,500 
4.000 

$25,500 



Comments: 



Recommendation: 



The attached memorandum, provided by the Port, 
contains supporting details and an explanation of the 
proposed budget. 

1. According to Mr. Alex Lee of the Port, in May of 1998 
the Port awarded a contract through a Request for 
Proposal, in an amount not to exceed $150,000, to Olivia 
Chen Consultants to provide engineering services to the 
Port on an as-needed basis. $4,000 of the proposed release 
of reserves would be used to pay for the engineering 
services of Olivia Chen Consultants for plan check and 
review for the new fire sprinklers to be installed as part of 
the fire safety system improvements at Pier 50. 

2. Mr. Lee states that of the $547,123 earmarked for fire 
safety system improvements at Pier 50, $460,000 is 
earmarked for the installation of new fire sprinklers, 
which has not yet been released from reserve. The subject 
release of reserves in the amount of $25,500 will come 
from the remaining monies, in the amount of $87,123, 
which are earmarked for general fire safety 
improvements. Upon Board of Supervisors approval of 
the proposed release of reserves, $25,500 would be 
released from the $87,123 earmarked for general fire 
safety improvements, and $61,623 will remain on reserve. 
Therefore, of the total reserve of $547,123 earmarked for 
the fire safety- system, $521,623 ($460,000 plus $61,623) 
will remain on reserve. 

Approve the proposed release of reserve funds. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

53 



SEP 17 '99 03:35PM PORT OF SF EXECUTIVE 



Attachment 
Paee 1 of 2 



P. 2/3 



PORT OF SAN FRANCISCO 



MEMORANDUM 
September 17, 1999 




Ferry Buil*ng 
San Franaaco. CA 9*1 1 1 
Telephone 41 5 274 0400 
Fax415 274 052B 

w*w.srporLeom 



TO: Harvey Rose 

Budget Analyst 

FROM: Alexander Lee ^* 

Director, Facilities & Operations r 

SUBJECT: Release of Reserved Funds - Pier 50 Fire Safety System 



This memorandum is to clarify my phone conversation with Ms. Severin Campbell. 

The fire safety system at Pier 50 is estimated at $547, 123 . Originally, the system consists 
of demising walls (fire walls), but the Port Fire Marshal approved the use of a sprinkler 
system instead of demising walls. A sprinkler system gives the Port more flexibility to 
configure the space to our tenants' needs, without having to remove and reinstall demising 
walls every time their needs change. 

The estimated total cost of the sprinkler installation is $460,000. The Port will request a 
release of reserved funds when a contractor is selected for the installation. We are 
requesting the release of $25,500 from the $547,123 fire safety system budget. If the 
installation is within our estimate, the remaining funds ($61,623) will be used for a 
monitoring system to enhance the safety of Pier 50. Again, when the Port is ready to 
award the monitoring system contract, we will request release of reserved funds from the 
Board at that time. 

Additional cost detail on the $25,500 release is as follows: 



Olivia Chen Consultants: 






Project Manager 


10 hrs x $95 = 


$ 950 


Mechanical Engineering Subconsultant 






Project Engineer 


34 hrs x $75 = 


$2,550 


Support Staff (Drafting) 


10 hrs x $50 = 


$ 500 



The Water Department's estimate of $14,000 is for the installation of 8" service at Pier 50. 
This is a fixed price for installing the 8" meter and to activate service. 



54 



Attachment 
Page 2 of 2 

Page 2 

The Public Utilities Commission Engineering Bureau provided an estimate of $7,500 for 
the following scope of work; 

Scope and site investigation $1,300 

Investigate existing utilities $3,400 

Preliminary alignment - drawings $1,900 

Project administration $ 900 

TOTAL $7,500 

PUC Engineering Bureau did not provide detailed breakdown on the work description. 

If you have any questions, please call me at 274-0404. 



55 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

September 22, 1999 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



Item 9 - File 99-1617 

Department: 

Item: 

Description: 



Controller 

Resolution establishing the City and County's 
appropriations limit for FY 1999-2000 pursuant to Article 
XIII B of the California Constitution. 

The proposed resolution would establish $1,477,821,483 
as the 1999-2000 adjusted appropriation limit or Gann 
spending limit for the City and County of San Francisco 
as required by Article XIII B of the California 
Constitution. 

On November 6, 1979, California voters approved 
Proposition 4, known as the Gann Initiative, which added 
Article XIII B to the California Constitution. Article XIII 
B limits the growth of appropriations from the proceeds of 
taxes of the State of California and local governments to 
the percentage of change in population and the lesser of 
the percentage change in the cost of living or in per capita 
personal income. The State Government Code requires 
that each local government establish its appropriation 
limit (Gann Limit) by resolution each year. 

The Controller has computed the 1999-2000 Gann Limit 
for the City and County of San Francisco as follows 
(percentages and computed amount have been rounded by 
the Controller): 



1998-99 Gross Gann Limit 

Adjusted by: 

Increase in Cost of Living 

Increase in Population 



$1,393,845,379 



4.53% 
1.43% 



1999-2000 Net Gann Limit $1,477,821,483* 

*1.0453 times 1.0143 equals 1.0602478 times $1,393,379. 

The Controller's Office monitors revenues affected by the 
Gann Limit throughout the year. At year-end, a final 
computation is prepared comparing actual proceeds of taxes 
to the Gann Limit. At that time, two tests must be met. 
First, all actual proceeds of taxes must be below the Gann 
Limit; and second, all actual proceeds of taxes collected 

Board of Supervisors 

Budget Analyst 

56 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

September 22, 1999 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

must be appropriated. If either test is not met, according to 
Article XIII B, excess revenues collected must be returned 
to the taxpayers within two years. 

The amount appropriated in the City's FY 1999-2000 
budget that is subject to the Gann Limit is $1,307,866,403 
which is $169,955,080 less than the net 1999-2000 Net 
Gann Limit of $1,477,821,483. In accordance with the 
Annual Appropriation Ordinance, any 1999-2000 tax 
proceeds in excess of current estimates will be appropriated 
to the City's General Fund General Reserve, which is used 
as a revenue source (a) to fund supplemental 
appropriations during the current fiscal year and (b) to 
fund the City's budget for the next fiscal year. 

Comments: 1. The Gann Limit was first applied in 1980-81 using the 

actual 1978-79 appropriations that would have been 
subject to the limit, had it existed then, as the base year 
(as called for by Article XIII B of the California 
Constitution). The 1978-79 base was adjusted for changes 
in per capita personal income, cost of living and 
population to obtain the 1980-81 limit. In each successive 
year, the prior year's limit was used as the base for 
computation of the new limit. 

2. State Proposition 111, approved by the voters in June 
1990, made several changes to the Article XIII B (3) which 
are reflected in the City's computations including an 
adjustment to exclude appropriations for "Qualified 
capital outlay as defined by the legislature" from proceeds 
of taxes. This results in a reduction of $22,673,078 for FY* 
1999-2000, from appropriations of proceeds of taxes 
subject to the limit. 

3. Based on the City Attorney's memorandum of opinion 
of June 14, 1988, the City is excluding Court and Federal 
mandates from appropriations subject to the 
appropriations limit. The City Attorney's Office has 
previously advised that the exclusion of Court and 
Federal mandates is consistent with the meaning of 
Article XIII B. No previous legal challenges have been 
filed questioning this interpretation. The two mandates 
for FY 1999-2000 totaling $8,419,117, that are identified 



Board of Supervisors 
Budget Analyst 

57 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

September 22, 1999 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



by a survey of all City departments and verified by the 
Controller's Office, are as follows: 

Federal Resource Conservation Act (Toxics) $ 4,649,815 
Jail Overcrowding 3.769.302 



Recommendation: 



Total Court and Federal Mandates 
Approve the proposed resolution. 



$ 8,419,117 




cc: Supervisor Yee 

Supervisor Bierman 
President Ammiano 
Supervisor Becerril 
Supervisor Brown 
Supervisor Katz 
Supervisor Kaufman 
Supervisor Leno 
Supervisor Newsom 
Supervisor Teng 
Supervisor Yaki 
Clerk of the Board 
Controller 
Legislative Analyst 
Matthew Hymel 
Stephen Kawa 
Ted Lakey 



Board of Supervisors 

Budget Analyst 

58 




City and County of San Francisco 

Meeting Minutes 
^Finance and Labor Committee 

Members: Supervisors Leland Yee, Sue Bierman and Tom Ammiano 
Clerk: Mary Red 



City Hall 

1 Dr. Carlton B. 

Goodlett Place 

San Francisco, CA 

94102^689 



Wednesday, September 29, 1999 



10:00 AM 
Regular Meeting 



City Hall, Room 263 



Members Present: Leland Y. Yee, Sue Bierman, Tom Ammiano. 



Meeting Convened 

The meeting convened at 10: 1 1 a.m. 

REGULAR AGENDA 



DOCUMENTS DEPT. 

OCT \ 1999 

SAN FRANCISCO 
PUBLIC LIBRARY 



991802 [1999 Asian Art Bond Award, Series 1999D] 
Supervisor Yaki 

Draft motion awarding bonds and fixing definitive interest rates for $16,730,000 general obligation bonds 

(Asian Art Museum Relocation Project), Series 1999D. 

9/21/99, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance and Labor Committee. 

Heard in Committee. Speakers: Harvey Rose. Budget Analyst: Laura Bordelon, Mayor's Office of Public 

Finance. 

AMENDED, AN AMENDMENT OF THE WHOLE BEARING SAME TITLE. 

Motion awarding bonds and fixing definitive interest rates for $16,730,000 general obligation bonds (Asian 
Art Museum Relocation Project), Series 1999D. 
AWARDED by the following vote: 

Ayes: 3 - Yee, Bierman, Ammiano 






City and County of San Francisco 



Printrdat 3:59 PU <m 9.10V9 



Finance and Labor Committee 



Meeting Minutes 



September 29, 1999 



991482 [Planning Department Enforcement Program| 
Supervisor Yee 

Hearing to consider the Planning Department's enforcement program, including how the enforcement program 
will be enhanced to vigorously enforce the Planning Code and terms of conditional use authorizations and how 
the positions that were approved in the FY 1999-2000 budget will be used to expand enforcement 
7/26/99, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance and Labor Committee 

8/1 1/99, CONTINUED TO CALL OF THE CHAIR Heard in Committee Speakers Harvey Rose. Budget Analyst, Supervise* Yee, 
Mary Gallagher. City Planning Department. Harry Stem. Friends of Noc Valley. Elcanorc Gcrhardt. Friends of Noc Valley. Bcmie 
Chodan, Arron Peskin, Telegraph Hill, Traccy Hughes. Roberta Caravelli. Christina Stout, Manna District. Lois Scott, Local 21 , 
Supervisor Bierman, Supervisor Ammiano 

Heard in Committee Speakers Harvey Rose, Budget Analwt. Shin Gallagher ; Aiming Administrator. 
Supervisor Ammiano; Larry Badmer. City Planning Department. Supervisor Yee, Supervisor Bierman, Marvii 
Phillips, Tenderloin; Harry Stern. Friends of Noe Valley, Patricia Vaughe) Com Hollow John Barhey. 
Coalition ofS.F. Neighborhoods; Jacob Goldberk. Richmond District Scott Durcamn. Russian Hill 
Neighbors Association; Anastasia Yovanopoulos. Noe Tenants Association 
CONTINUED TO CALL OF THE (II MR In the following \ote: 
Ayes: 3 - Yee. Bierman, Ammiano 



991537 (Appropriation, S.F. I nified School District| 

Ordinance appropriating 560,713,766, San Francisco Unified School District, of school Bond proceeds for 

capital improvement projects on various school facilities, cost of issuance, and other related costs for fiscal 

year 1999-2000. (Controller) 

8/4/99, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance and Labor Committee 

9/15/99, CONTINUED Heard in Committee Speakers Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst, Tim Tronson. S I I imfied School District. 

Supervisor Yee. Supervisor Ammiano. Laura, Opshal, Mayor's Office, Ed Harrington. Controller Continued to September 29, 1999 

CONTINUED TO CALL OF THE CHAIR b> the following vote: 

Ayes: 3 - Yee, Bierman, Ammiano 



991699 [Appropriation, Water Department! 

Ordinance appropriating S300.000, Water Department, of San Francisco Water Operating Fund balance to 
fund the Crystal Springs Pump Station (landslide repairs) for fiscal year 1999-2000. (Controller) 

(Fiscal impact.) 

9/8/99. RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance and Labor Committee 

Heard in Committee Speakers Harvey Rose. Budget Analyst; Suresh Patel. Public utilities Commission 

Amended to reduce amount of appropriation to S279.870; new title 

AMENDED. 

Ordinance appropriating $279,870, Water Department, of San Francisco Water Operating Fund balance to 

fund the Crystal Spnngs Pump Station (landslide repairs) for fiscal year 1999-2000. (Controller) 

(Fiscal impact.) 

RECOMMENDED \S AMENDED by the following \ote: 

Ayes: 2 - Yee, Bierman 
Absent: 1 - Ammiano 



City and County of San Francisco 



Printed at 3:59 PM on v .?<! V9 



Finance and Labor Committee 



Meeting Minutes 



September 29, 1999 



991701 [Court Compensation] 

Ordinance setting schedules of compensation and other economic benefits for fiscal year 1999-2000 for certain 

classifications of persons employed by the Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco. (Superior 

Courts) 

9/8/99, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance and Labor Committee 

Heard in Committee. Speakers: Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst; Neal Taniguchi, Trial Courts. In Support: 
Andre Spearman, Local 790. 
RECOMMENDED by the following vote: 
Ayes: 3 - Yee, Bierman, Ammiano 



991644 [1999 Finance Corporation Equipment Lease] 
Mayor 

Resolution approving the form of and authorizing execution and delivery by the City and County of San 
Francisco of an Equipment Lease Supplement No. 8 between the City and County of San Francisco Finance 
Corporation, as lessor, and the City and County of San Francisco, as lessee, with respect to equipment to be 
used for City purposes, a related certificate of approval and a continuing disclosure certificate; approving the 
issuance of Lease Revenue Bonds by said nonprofit corporation in an amount not to exceed $9,800,000; 
providing for reimbursement to the City of certain City expenditures incurred prior to the issuance of Lease 
Revenue Bonds; and approving for the execution of documents in connection therewith and ratifying previous 
actions taken in connection therewith. 

(Fiscal impact.) 

8/23/99, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance and Labor Committee. 
9/15/99, CONTINUED. Continued to September 22, 1999. 
9/22/99, CONTINUED. Continued to September 29, 1 999. 

Heard in Committee. Speakers: Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst; Sarah Hollenbeck, Mayor's Office of Public 
Finance. 

RECOMMENDED by the following vote: 
Ayes: 3 - Yee, Bierman, Ammiano 



991580 [Permitting non-City workers to perform work for the City because non-City workers can perform 
work at a lesser cost than City employees - Unarmed security guards at the .Airport) 

Resolution approving the Controller's certification that security guard services for San Francisco International 

Airport can be practically performed by a private contractor at a lower cost than if the work were performed 

by City and County employees at presently budgeted levels. (Airport Commission) 

8/12/99, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance and Labor Committee. 

9/21/99, SUBSTITUTED. Substituted by Airport Commission 9/21/99, bearing same title 

9/21/99, ASSIGNED to Finance and Labor Committee 

Heard in Committee. Speakers: Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst. Jon Ballesteros, Airport. 
RECOMMENDED by the following vote: 

Ayes: 3 - Yee, Bierman, Ammiano 



City and County of San Francisco 



Printed at .1:59 PM on 9 30 V« 



Finance and Labor Committee Meeting Minutes September 29, 1 999 



991700 |Lease: Award of the New International Terminal Bookstore/Cafe' Lease to Benjamin Books. Inc. for a 
five-year term with a minimum annual rent of $265,854 for the first year) 

Resolution approving the New International Terminal Bookstore'Cafe' Lease between Benjamin Books, Inc 
and the City and County of San Francisco, acting by and through its Airport Commission. (Airport 
Commission) 

9/8/99, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED lo Finance and Labor Committee 

Heard in Committee Speakers Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst, Jotl BallesterOi Airport, Su; 
RECOMMENDED by the following vote: 
Ayes: 3 - Yee, Bierman, Ammiano 



991721 |Reserved Funds, Department of Public Health| 

Hearing to consider release of reserved funds. Department of Public Health ( 1999-2000 Budget reserve), in the 
amount of $300,000 for the purpose of opening a now Acute Diversion 1'nii (AIM I. a treatment facility that 
provides intensive treatment services to the mentally ill. (Department of Public Health) 
9/13/99, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance and Ubor Committee 

Heard in Committee. Speakers Harvey Rose. Budget Analyst. Anne Okubo, Department oj Public Health. 
Supervisor Ammiano; Supervisor Yee. 
APPROVED AND FILED by the following vote: 
Ayes: 3 - Yee, Bierman, Ammiano 



SPECIAL ORDER AT 1 1 :00 A.M. 



991347 (Reserved Funds, Department of Human Services] 

Hearing to consider release of reserved funds. Department of Human Resources. (1999-2000 Budget reserve), 
in the amount of $1.3 million to implement the proposed 100 bed family residence at 260 Golden Gate 
Avenue. (Department of Human Services) 
8/31/99. RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance and Ubor Committee 

Heard in Committee Speakers Harvey Rose. Budget Analyst. Will Lightbourne, Executive Director, 
Department of Human Services; Maggie Donahue. Department of Human Services, Jane Morrison. President. 
Human Services Commission. Steve Kawa, Mayor's Office; Supervisor Ammiano; Supervisor Biarman; 
Supervisor Yee. In Support: Salvador Mon/ivar. Hamilton Family Center Mrs Lacey, Woman Yee, Wu Yee 
Children's Services; Maria Luz Torres. Tho Do. Local 2. Connv Ford. Local .< Sister Bernie Calvin. 
Carmen. Raphael House; Roscoe Hawkins. St Anthony's Foundation. Father Louis I itale. St Bom 
Parish: Laura Munous; Martha Ryan. Homeless Prenatal Program. Joyce Miller. Tiffany Mock-Goeman, 
Continuum; Dick Clark. Haight District. James Iran. Eviction Defense Network, Joshua Halden. Susan 
Maddis: Ms. Pina. Prenatal Homeless Program; Paul Boden. Coalition on Homeless Chester Salinas. Erma. 
Homeless Prenatal Program; Beatrice Robinson. Charmagne Williams, Teresa Mullan. David Passco, 
Connecting Point; Cathy Groggen. Hamilton Center. Jackie Henderson; Susan Hayney, Rachael Toner. 
Opposed: Robert Sirulalar. Central YMCA. Edward Evans, Tenderloin; Garrett Jenkins. North of Market 
Planning Coalition. Release entire amount of $1.3 million 
APPROVED AND FILED by the following Note: 
Ayes: 3 - Yee, Bierman, Ammiano 



City and County of San Francisco 4 Printed at ?: 51 PM 



Finance and Labor Committee Meeting Minutes September 29, 1999 



991723 [Government Funding) 

Mayor, Supervisors Yaki, Ammiano, Bierman, Katz, Becerril, Leno, Brown, Kaufman 

Ordinance appropriating $657,000 of the General Fund Reserve to fund services of other City agencies- 
Unified School District to provide arts programs in the public schools for fiscal year 1999-2000. 
9/13/99, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance and Labor Committee. 

Heard in Committee. Speakers: Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst; Steve Kawa, Mayor's Office; Enrique 
Palacios, Director Inter- Community Services, S.F. Unified School District; Sally Ann Ryan, S.F. Unified 
School District; Supervisor Ammiano; Supervisor Bierman. In Support: Rev. Joseph Ryan; Glen Park 
Elementary School Children's Chorus; Florence Kelly, Teacher, McKinley Elementary School; Dennis 
McNalley, Publicist for the Greatful Dead; Wendy; Dick Bright; Camille Salmon, Co-chair, Art Providers 
Alliance; Brenda Berlin, Young Audience of the Bay Area; Steven Goldstein, Arts Education Project; Ann 
Wettrich, Arts Education Project; Orrin Keepnews, jazz producer; Sherri Rosenberg, PTA, Lafayette School; 
Susan Stauter; Carol Kosivar, state PTA; Meg Madden; Dan Ryan, SFOP. 
RECOMMENDED by the following vote: 
Ayes: 3 - Yee, Bierman, Ammiano 



ADJOURNMENT 

The meeting adjourned at I;45 P.M. 



City and County of San Francisco 5 Printed at 3:59 P.\f on 9/30/V9 



Public Library, Gov't Information Ctr.. 5 th Fir. 
Attn: Susan Horn, Dept. 41 



254 



M 




BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

1390 Market Street, Suite 1025, San Francisco, CA 94102 (415) 554-7642 
FAX (415) 252-0461 



September 24, 1999 
TO: ..Finance and Labor Committee 

FROM: , Budget Analyst 

SUBJECT: September 29, 1999 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 
Item 1 - File 99-1802 



Department: 
Item: 



Description: 



Comments: 



DOCUMENTS DEPT. 

SEP 2 8 1999 

SAN FRANCISCO 
PUBLIC LIBRARY 



Mayor's Office of Public Finance 

Motion awarding bonds and fixing definitive 
interest rates for $16,730,000 of General Obligation 
Bonds (Asian Art Museum Relocation Project), 
Series 1999D. 

On August 23, 1999, the Board of Supervisors 
approved a resolution authorizing and directing the 
sale of $16,730,000 of General Obligation Bonds for 
the Asian Art Museum Relocation Project, Series 
1999D (Resolution 796-99). The proceeds from the 
sale of these bonds will be used for reconstruction 
of the old Main Library building, including 
structural, roofing, electrical, plumbing, heating 
and ventilation, to prepare for the relocation of the 
Asian Art Museum. 

Ms. Laura Bordelon of the Mayor's Office of Public 
Finance advises that the bids for the proposed 
bonds are scheduled to be opened at 8:00 a.m. on 
Wednesday, September 29, 1999, and that unless 
all of the bids are rejected, the Finance and Labor 
Committee will be asked to award the bonds to the 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

September 29, 1999 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

bidder whose bid represents the lowest true 
interest cost to the City. Ms. Bordelon reports that 
the Mayor's Office of Public Finance will submit an 
Amendment of the Whole to the Finance and Labor 
Committee's scheduled meeting at 10:00 a.m. on 
Wednesday, September 29, 1999, which will list the 
winning bidder, the other bidders and the interest 
rate that each bidder offered to the City. 

Recommendation: Approve a motion which awards the subject bonds 

to the low bidder, which represents the lowest true 
interest cost to the City. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

September 29, 1999 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

Item 2 -99-1482 

Note: This item was continued by the Finance and Labor Committee at its meeting 
of August 11, 1999. 



Department: 
Item: 



Description: 



Department of City Planning 

Hearing to consider the Planning Department's 
enforcement program, including how the enforcement 
program will be enhanced to vigorousfy enforce the 
Planning Code and terms of conditional use authorization 
and how the positions that were approved in the FY 1999- 
2000 Budget will be used to expand enforcement. 

The FY 1999-2000 Budget as approved by the Board of 
Supervisors included a total of 13 new, fee-based positions 
for the Department of City Planning. These positions are 
funded by Planning Commission fee revenues for 
processing various Planning Department approval 
requirements and Planning Commission cases. 

Attachment I provided by the Department of City 
Planning, explains the intended organization and use of 
the eleven new, fee-based positions for the enforcement 
program. 

Attachment II, also provided by the Department, shows 
the $1,035,687 in cost details of the positions as included 
in the FY 1999-2000 Budget. 

At its meeting of August 11, 1999, the Finance and Labor 
Committee requested additional information concerning 
the Planning Department's enforcement program. 

Ms. Mary Gallagher, the City's Zoning Administrator, has 
advised the Budget Analyst that a representative of the 
Planning Department will attend the Finance Committee 
meeting of September 29, 1999, to respond directly to the 
Finance and Labor Committee regarding such requested 
information. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Attachment I 
Page 1 or 2 



San Francisco Planning Department 

FY 1999-2000 Budget Proposal: Neighborhood Planning Unit's Request for Additional Staff 



Background 

The San Francisco Planning Department is composed of six units which undertake various aspects 
of current and long-range planning and environmental review for the City of San Francisco. The 
Neighborhood Planning unit within the Department is staffed by 50 positions and is organized 
geographically to undertake the review of all types of planning applications and building permits 
and to enforce the Pla nnin g Code. This unit engages in neighborhood outreach to better understand 
neighborhood needs and, once sufficiently funded, to develop plans, design guidelines, enforcement 
programs. and other special programs designed to respond to the unique needs of individual 
neighborhoods. The Major Environmental Analysis Unit is staffed by 19 positions and is charged 
with conducting environmental review California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA;. 

In developing the Department's fiscal year 1999-2000 budget and work, program, the Neighborhood 
Planning and Major Environmental Analysis Units undertook a needs assessment which examined 
the work flow, including the type and number of applications received and, for Neighborhood 
Planning, needs expressed by the neighborhoods in last year's Neighborhood Planning Survey - a 
survey of neighborhood organizations relating to planning issues. This assessment revealed that the 
number and complexity of applications has risen dramatically in the past year and far exceeded the 
number of applications that could be reviewed by die current staffing levels, that the applications 
brought in fees that would fully support enough new staff members to adequately review these 
applications; that by law the money from these applications must be put to use in reviewing the 
applications; and that the number one planning priority for neighborhood organizations is 
enforcement. 

The Proposal 

To respond to this needs assessment, the Department is asking for 13 new positions, fnliy paid for 
by application fees, to review applications and to enforce the Planning Code and monitor mitigation 
measures. Two of the positions will be review projects for CEQA compliance. This review is 
. required by law. Projects cannot be considered for approval without CEQA review. Members of 
the public pay hefty fees to enable the Department to undertake this review. Without the new staff, 
the applicant's money is not put to any use and their project is frozen. Eleverj of the positions will 
be assigned to Neighborhood Planning to review applications and enforce the Planning Code. 

The Neighborhood Planning Unit currently has four geographic teams, each staffed by 6-9 planners 
and one support staff, as well as several pooled support staff, two Planner V's and the Zoning 
Administrator. Originally, the Department requested 18.5 positions for this unit At that time, the 
proposal was to bring each of the four teams up to 10 people each, create a fifth geographic team 
and create one "tactical" team. The Mayor's office worked with the Department to arrive at a 
reduction in the request — from 18.5 to 11. With this reduction, the proposal changed by emitting 
the fifth team. (This decision was made by the planners who staff the teams now. It was based on 
the fact that 10 persons per teajn appears to be the optimal number of staff on a team in order to 



AUG as '99 12:20flM SF FLAWING DEFT 4155585426 ■ p. 3 ' 

. Attachment. I 



■. ■ . Page 2 of 2 

have enough expertise of various types to serve a neighborhood, to provide backup during vacations 
end illnesses, etc.) Each of the four teams would be brought up to 1 persons each and a tactical 
team would be created under the 1 1 -person proposal. The tactical team would undertake the 
following duties: 

1) develop.and coordinate a neighborhood-based enforcement program (sec below for fuller ' 

explanation) 

2). undertake the second phase of a citywide historic resources survey 

3) revise Articles 10 and 1 1 of the Planning Code 

4) develop a training program for neighborhood planning staff to ensure planners know the code 
and implement it appropriately 

5) improve procedures 

6) facilitate neighborhood outreach for the teams 

7) when there are unexpected influxes in applications, help the geographic teams review cases. 

The Enforcement Program 

The enforcement program would be developed and coordinated by the tactical team and 
implemented by the geographic teams. Initially, the tactical team would work closely with . ■ 
representatives of umbrella organizations, in particular the Coalition for San Francisco's 
Neighborhoods and the Council of District Merchants, to assist in selecting neighborhoods and 
neighborhood issues on which to focus, and with representatives from the Building Department, the 
Mayor's Office of Neighborhood Services and City Attorney's Office to coordinate the. enforcement 
actions of -other city agencies. The geographic team members would then work closely, with 
individual neighborhood groups to fine-tune the program based on the needs of each neighborhood. 
For instance, if 24th Street is chosen as one of tie targeted areas, the neighborhood groups their may 
want the Department to focus on the illegal conversion of upper-story housing to office use. 
Another 1 neighborhood may find illegal outdoor dining their most pressing problem. Still another 
may want the enforcement work to include several use-types. It is estimated that a minimum of one 
FTE of planner's time will be devoted to each of the quadrants to assure that the program continues 
to provide adequate enforcement efforts to San Francisco's neighborhoods, Additional resources 
would be allocated to the tactical team for this effort. The Zoning Administrator would play a key 
role in developing the program. 

The Department would commit to semi-annual reports to the Coalition and Council of District 
Merchants to ensure accountability and secure feedback on the program's efficacy. 

■ n:\*h»c\yeebuepci 



Attachment II 



— g a o t- a 

CM N O S O O 

9) — co iq «-_ cc 

co" esi" co" o" to cs 

_ - a rv n c r 



— — co — 



_ o cs 

■ 

o 

u 



cm p~ 



c/> 



</» mv»«« w 



- N T N - - 



— — CM 





i 



I c m s <: c 

•<t s k — ►>. tt 

o iq o_ cvj_ a o 

cm" co" in* r>" c* a" 



M ** « V» •«> *<> 



CM — CM r- O CO 

*» o> O f^ — is 
co tt n o co — 



in 

Q 

a. 



2 

O 



O 6) 

2 = IS T R N - 



.. . 


tf> 








_ 


re 






CM 


►«. 


t: 


e 






N 


e 


2 


o> 




U"f 


CO* 


"= 














00 





0) 

? 






■ 




5 




t*% 


fc^ 






05 




CM 


__ 


















CO 


>> 


co 


o 






■ 


in 


LR 






5 


s 


cc 


UO 








(A 










■5 


c- 









« W»«j« W 



ro a -c re jo ~ 
ILLLa 



a a 



^ s: co cm 



Uj ° 

i» — 

I - 



jd _re 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

September 29, 1999 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

Item 3 - File 99-1537 

Note: This item was continued by the Finance and Labor Committee at its 
meeting of September 15, 1999. 



Department: 



Item: 



Amount: 
Source of Funds: 

Description: 



San Francisco Unified School District (SFUSD) 

Ordinance appropriating $60,713,766 of General 
Obligation Bonds (Educational Facility Bonds, 1997A - 
SFUSD) Series 1999B proceeds for capital improvement 
projects on various school facilities, cost of issuance, and 
debt service, for the San Francisco Unified School District 
for fiscal year 1999-2000. 

$60,713,766 

General Obligation Bonds (Educational Facility Bonds, 
1997A - SFUSD) Series 1999B, hereafter referred to as 
"Educational Facility Bonds, Series 1999B". 

On June 3, 1997, a total of $90,000,000 in General 
Obligation Bonds for the construction and upgrading of 
SFUSD educational facilities was approved by the 
electorate. Educational Facility Bonds, Series 1999B 
were issued on June 16, 1999 for the construction and/or 
reconstruction of educational facilities for the SFUSD. 
According to Ms. Laura Opsahl-Bordelon of the Mayor's 
Office of Public Finance and Economic Development, the 
total Bond proceeds for Education Facility Bonds, Series 
1999B are in the amount of $60,713,766. 

The subject supplemental appropriation would 
appropriate the $60,713,766 in Bond proceeds for the 
following: (a) $60,287,090 for capital improvement 
projects on various SFUSD school facilities, (b) $235,050 
for bond issuance costs, and (c) $191,626 for debt service 
costs (accrued interest payments and a portion of the 
underwriter's premium). 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

September 29, 1999 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



Budget: 



The budget is summarized as follows: 



Purpose of Appropriation 


Incurred as 


Not Yet 


Total 




of 09/08/99 


Expended 


Estimated 
Costs 


New Schools 


$327,406 


$160,180 


$487,586 


Children's Centers 


1,329 


17.983 


49,312 


Science Laboratories 


376,178 


336,549 


712,727 


Seismic Upgrades 


1,330,265 


523.747 


1,854,012 


Technology Upgrades 


4,361,638 


9,489,840 


13,851,478 


Renovation 


25,656,418 


9,749,112 


35,405,530 


Health and Safety 


46,860 


14,328 


61,188 


Disability Access Improvements 


5,672,817 


2.142,964 


7,815,781 


Reduced Class Size 


45.873 


3.603 


49.476 


Subtotal 


37,818.784 


22,468,306 


60,287,090 


Bond Issuance Costs 





235,050 


235,050 


Debt Service 





191.626 


191.626 


TOTAL 


S37,818.7S4 


$22,894,982 


$60,713,766 



Attachment I. provided by the SFUSD, contains a project 
budget for the proposed capital improvements totaling 
$60,287,090 for Phase I which would be funded by the 
Educational Facility Bonds. Series 1999B in FY 1999- 
2000. 

•Attachment I also contains the proposed capital 
improvements totaling $29,712,910 for Phase II. 
Together, Phases I and II account for the total SFUSD 
capital improvement program cost of $90,000,000. 
According to Mr. Tim Tronson of the SFUSD. the SFUSD 
will seek a second bond issuance to fund Phase II. He 
advises that the SFUSD anticipates, based on current 
project scheduling and subject to Board of Supervisors 
approval, that the second bond issuance will occur within 
the next 12-18 months. 



Comments: 



1. In November 1997, the Board of Supervisors 
authorized and directed the sale of General Obligation 
Bonds (Educational Facility Bonds, 1997 - SFUSD) Series 
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 
8 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

September 29, 1999 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



1998C not to exceed $47,000,000 (Resolution No. 149-98). 
The issuance of General Obligation Bonds (Educational 
Facility Bonds, 1997 - SFUSD) Series 1998C was delayed 
due to litigation related to Proposition D which had been 
placed on the same June 3, 1997 ballot to authorize the 
City to issue Football Stadium Bonds to finance a portion 
of a new stadium development project at Candlestick 
Point. This litigation delayed bond counsel issuing a final 
opinion on the validity of the SFUSD bonds. 
Consequently, the SFUSD requested that additional Bond 
funds be issued to cover project costs for an additional 
year. On March 1, 1999 the Board of Supervisors 
authorized and directed the sale of Educational Facility 
Bonds, Series 1999B, not to exceed $64,000,000 (File 99- 
0200), thereby replacing the previous authorization of 
$47,000,000. This represented an increase of 

$17,000,000, or approximately 36 percent. 

Educational Facility Bonds, Series 1999B were issued on 
June 16, 1999 (File 99-1154). According to Ms. Opsahl- 
Bordelon, the total Bond proceeds for Education Facility 
Bonds, Series 1999B are in the amount of $60,713,766. 

2. According to Mr. Tronson, SFUSD capital improvement 
project expenditures of $37,818,784, or approximately 63 
percent, of the subject $60,287,090 capital improvements 
budget have already been incurred as of September 8, 
1999, prior to obtaining Board of Supervisors approval. 
Attachment II is a memorandum from Mr. Tronson which 
explains why the SFUSD expended $37,818,784 of the 
-subject funds prior to obtaining appropriation approval 
from the Board of Supervisors. 

3. Subsequent to the completion of our initial report on 
this item for the September 15, 1999 Finance and Labor 
Committee meeting, we received a revision to the figures 
originally supplied to our office, and shown in the Table 
above. This revision resulted in a reaUocation of total 
estimated costs of approximately $148,000 of the subject 
$60.7 million request between the Technology Upgrades 
project classification and the Renovation project 
classification. However, project allocations are frequently 
adjusted for large capital projects and such allocations do 
not affect appropriation control of the bond funds. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

9 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

September 29, 1999 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



4. Our primary concern with this proposed ordinance 
remains the fact that the SFUSD expended approximately 
63 percent of the requested funds for these projects prior 
to appropriation approval by the Board of Supervisors. 

5. The Finance and Labor Committee continued 
consideration of this proposed ordinance and instructed 
the Controller, the Mayor's Office of Finance and the 
Budget Analyst to review actual SFUSD spending and 
projected project costs for the projects identified in 
Attachment I in order to determine the extent to which 
project funds have been expended for the purposes 
originally identified for the issuance of the bonds. Mr. 
Enrique Navas, Chief Financial Officer of the SFUSD, 
has agreed to provide such data in a report format 
prescribed by the Controller, Mayor's Office of Finance 
and the Budget Analyst. 

6. As of the writing of this report, the SFUSD has not 
provided project expenditure and estimated total cost 
data for the bond funded projects. According to Mr. 
Navas, such a report will not be available for presentation 
to the Finance and Labor Committee until the Committee 
meeting of October 6, 1999. 

Recommendation: Continue the proposed ordinance to the Finance and 

Labor Committee meeting of October 6, 1999. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

10 



Attachment I 
Pasel of 13 









• I 




rr 


■=io 


"c 




Gl - 






~ 


X 


tc 


m 


"in 
lli 


CM 



= c 



u — c 



c 



— co o rr 
>U ta cm I m 

2 m 
;r en 

B. o 



LL! 



■2L P 



< US 

-y C 
^ x 



Q 

< 



co LU 



"ol = 



io o '-lea 

en — ol =: 
w -v col — 



3v 



irj| o C r>- 

CIO © CM 

ea I o" c" tt 

ir3| it: c o 



J£ 


a 






o 


m 


> 


c_ 




3 


a 




2 




a 


_l 




a 


s. 


u 


E 


5 


5 


CJ 


a 


c/) 



— IS j£ (B — • ^. 



c 5 



i- 



-T fc (D 



CM — •- 



O CIO 



Ol c 

oi e 



_c 


CD 

c 




c 


CD 


X 






X 


c 


LL! 




"E 


LU 


~c 


CD 




"5 


CD 












<J) 


co 




en 


d 












— 


'Z. 


o 


— 


fc 














en 






en 


c 
3 

a 


LLI 
7c 


a 


c 
5 


LU 




O 


"a 


2 


c 


3 


i— 


o 


_co 


.— 






"o 






2. 




en 


EL 




~ 




5 


- 




a 
U 




c 
2 


c 

O 





O "c _CD 

= j = « £ 1 1 if 






5 _ 



■SO 2 



> 


01 




en 


- 


LLI 


c 
5 


LU 


a 

E 


IE 


a 


"5 








CJ 


o 


-- 


c 



O CO 



c 


O 


O 








"u 


"w 


a.' 


«3|(N 


< 


Ol 




= :o 




oio 


£ 




: ~> 


T 



11 



Attachment T 
Page 2 of 13 



m -Big S S 1 

o - 1 — iq o i i 

JS C_'~ <** Ol c r^T] r» 

; x - a PJlia ~l~ 



« 2J2 sis 



Ol O 
CM| CM* 



cn m 



r~-rv.es 



in cm 



o 












Q < 


cr 




. Z3 


O 






cn 




o - 


UJ 




— Q 


E 




° S 


3 


~ 




2 


O 

rv 


— p 




C 


- o 


X 


2: 
< 






UJ 


5 £ 


O 


> 


o o 


11! 


r~. 


O C 


— 




co O 


< 

— 




^E 




2: ~~ 


CO 




< & 


LU 




cr o 






u_ *- 


















< 






CO 







CM 



inliri r^-lr-. cm I cm clc — I — 

cnj cn cn | cn Ol O cic oic 

cn i n ■<r -<r r--"l rC c ~ c ic" i i~" 

cm I cm r— r- cic cic — ' — 

CM CM — — — — Cic CM CM 



5 c •= U 

— D ro — 

-— "5 — 

5 -j r: r- 



oi — c ~ 

OI= » « 

w C o CO 

c cj cn cn 



c o 
5 x 
"5 lu 



CO CD 

2 o 



a x 
c til 



!S r- 



- cu 

5 X 

■ 11! 



- co ^ ca _ o 

-£ x~ -2x~ -2 X 
c U c 11! e 11! 



X 5 x" 

HI c 11! 

o "5 c 



_ c 

.£ 5" 

n Hi 



5 _ 

c rc 



C in 

5 L - 



m -* TT J* 



— ■ 

"5 o 



— a 
* :- 



-i 



12 



Attachment T 
Pase3 of 13 



— jZ Ico co 

° m\ tn A' n . 

.2 Cjcni n 

:: x ~' 



tn til 



= o 

to «= 

o — c 

c a. o 

IB CM 



cm 



a 


a 


in 


CM 


en 


o 


C 


o 

S3 



o 



vol tn o! o 

— — olo 

•^■J -<r CMJ CM_ 

cmi cm" cm"i cm" 

-=" -3" C S 

CM CM i— ■>— 



T T O CC O — 

— — col e a m 



olc "="!"=■ 

OICT CM I CM 

•*-•¥- CM CM 



cm in 
n o 
cm — 



cm| cm r«-| r»- 

ojq cm I CM 
in) ia" 

CM CM CM CM — 



CM ID 
CO o 
CM •«- 



2 


CD 

x" 

1X1 


"t5 


cu 

c 

X 

HI 


_5 


o 

x~ 

11! 


£ 


_CD 


"5 


jD 


"5 


a 


<n 


CD 


m 


CO 


U1 


CO 


-= 


S 


.s 




*z 




JjC 


— 


^ 


^ 


J£. 


— 




en 




CO 




</) 


C 

3 


111 

"5 


o 

"5 


111 

Is 


o 

CO 


LM 

75 


2 


o 

t 




o 




o 






B HI 



-Si x ±i x -i= 



— _a; — _~: ~ .sica — 



to 

HI 

To 


o 

CO 


HI 

75 


o 

C3 


c 


ID 

7c 


o 


2 


o 


2 


"5 


c 


1- 


m 


H 


CD 


_i 


1- 



-^ o -c. 



5s H 



o 



75 HI 



- E -= E ■= E ■£ E ■£ E — ■§ E - E ■£ E -= 



-a: — jzz — jz 



J LU J UJ |UJ 



-01 — 
C3 -="! CM 
CM CM LO 



= 1 CJ 

t= i a 

CM CM 



= X i X = 



■S HI 
a — 



— c O 
S3H 



— > 
en cj 



13 



Anachmen: I 
Paac 4 of 13 



5 r 



— I m I uo -r ~ | in -r\ t cm i cm 

nio s ism qiq dig 

coj co - slo c-> i eo ioiit: 

nm ef to i — " cm" cm' io"i io 

cmicm c o es mi in nm 

N CM T ■>— C CM CM w »» 



to ro 

(Ml CM 

Ol o 



co 


n 


'- 


(0 


en 


— 


Q 


|>a 


CO 


O 


~-~~ 


-r 


cm 




co 


■? 


« 


h» 



£2 CO — CM ~ . ~. 

coj <o_ n. n - 5i?i 
nm n a -' -i kT 

CMI CM n N - 5i(M 

cm cm co = 

CM 



o <= 

m cm 

o ■ c 

u - cl 

= C C 

en cm 



— c: 

— — en 



O 



t— CD 



Q < C 
, 3 O 

n OT "■ 
y t-T tn 

O — LU 

-r Q cr 

<-> ^ 2 ° 
-g§5 

OOL' n 
C0O< 

o?3 



n r- cm c 

co c~ o s 

rj_ r^ — = 

co 35* "T O 



£s 



< 

CO 



„ 


a 






a 


_c 


c 

X 


O 




a. 

X 


a 


111 


ffi 




LU 












n 


o 


"5 




£ 












m 


n 


en 




S 








■ 




— 


C 


— 




t 


-=: 




JC 


■ 






en 






t/i 


c 


LU 


5 
5 


Q 


HI 


■ 


~cc 


"co 


3 


a 














c 




~5 
_j 


c 


n 


r- 


CD 


r— 








CD 




E_ 




X 


eo 





__ 


o 




- 










_c 








X 




X 


■ 


HI 


"5 


_J 



o 



- u 



o 



.SS X ^i X _= 






a '— 



c 

a S 



~ z — c z 



^c — e _~ c 

5 ° - 3 — ~ c 

c : ~ = — — 5 — 



f , _ O CJ 

U = o — 



oowtn 



CD 



■= co 



14 




~z_ 



c 
< 



olo tt| tt 



o ol = 
o c-ji cm 

l"«. CMJ C_ 

c\T cjl cm" 

CM Ql CM 
CM CNl LO 
-" - CM* 



-=- r- — I r— - 



Cl c 

CM CM 



ol C3 



en m 
ay to 

01 o" 



Attachment I 
Pase 5 of 13 



□ i a 

CM CM -^- — 





O 

O 




O 

O 




35 






55 




CD 




c 

CD 




CD 




c 

CD 




CD 




CD 




CD 

x" 

LU 


3 


ffl 


_5 


jD 


_5 


x" 


_o 




X 


_c 


x" 


_o 


x" 




c 

X 


_5 


x" 


5 


c 

X 


_c 


X 


§ 


as 


en 


S 


CD 


"in 


LU 


2 




LU 


]"" 


LU 


n 


LU 




LU 


"5 


LU 


"5 


LU 


JB 


LU 


"5 


~r£ 


-= 


"5 


"■ 


"S" 


_m 


"5 




_D 


"5 


O 


"5 


_CD 




jD 


"a 


_£ 


"CD 


O 


"5 


© 


"c 


03 


c/l 


en 
LU 


W 


OS 

LU 


en 


ra 


en 


o 


en 


t~ 


ra 


en 


C3 


<D 


CO 


c 


ra 


en 


ra 


en 


ra 


= 


CC 


5 
3 

2 


"ra 


JC 


"ra 


-£ 


"35 


js: 


og 


"en 


-^ 


"en 


-£ 


en 


CO 


en 


•£ 


en 


-^ 


"35 

LU 

"ra 

c 


_^ 


"35 
LU 

"ra 

c 


Ze. 


-JE 


o 


Q 

5 

CD 

-z. 


o 

"- 


O 

5 

CD 

Z 


111 
"5 

o 


a 

> 

"5" 
2 


C3 

~~5 


LU 
"ro 

o 


o 

$ 

a 


LU 
"ra 
c 


J 

CD 


LU 
""□ 
O 


c 
*cn 


LU 

"5 
o 


c 
5 

CD 

z 


LU 

"ra 
o 


O 

CD 

z 


J 

CD 


J 

ffl 


LU 

"5 


3 




co 




CD 


!- 


CD 




H- 


CD 


H 


CD 


h- 


_j 


i — 


CD 


i — 


CD 


t- 


C 


1— 


_o 


:— 
















a 












<D 


















c. 




r* 




S. 




s. 


CJ 




2. 




7i 




U 




C. 




s 




"; 




5 


















































~r 




C 




C 




c 


CO 




EZ 




C 




_o 




c 




£ 




— 




P 





a o 
U en 



a 



15 



Attachment I 
Pass 6 of 13 



■^ _:lo -lc 



- cjc nio' — " 

— ^ era r^ f^ 1 ~* 
-r cm 



co UJ 



nln u.o I tn n clc cic tn — — la 

m i 10 cic e o i r- «— j »- n o is n 

•c- 1 ^ r- — i r — o cj r- n\ c*j_ rt — o j c:_ 

ccl cs" c f»i n — i ~ m c; rsTi c*3 

nn m n c cm i cm n n cic. 



n- — a 
G w I m 
m mm 



CM CM 



cmi cv 

CMI CM 

m 10 



r- — 



— o *% "*i 

a o l co erf 

»1 CNIO S 

(3 A^ CM 



C — -r 

o m m 

c — rj 



C r- 
cn m 
cm n 



a 






*UJ 






— ^_ 






Q < 


E 






o 

u. 




o - 


UJ 




-— r^ 


E 










CO O 


— 


— 
2 






UJ 




0. 


C 


- g 


UJ 


< 


=>^ 


U. 
O 


> 


O o 


UJ 


eh 


a c_ 


h- 




en o 


< 




yE 


r— 




^. . 


CO 






UJ 




c: o 






L!_ "«- 






2 






< 






CO 







_ o 



— X i 



j= x a 



Jx x~ 



"5 UJ 



o m o m 

5 _ 5 _ 



c — * 



Jcl 



~ c ,C Z c Z O 2 -5 o 



B UJ c 



en _ — ~ 

= in _ C m 

c = o = c 



C .s; C = 



C -2 - — — — 



— x 






_ 03 

-2 x~ 



— in 

5 r 



w — ■ - - — 



— <D 

C o o 
n. cj co 



c c 
O u 

O CD 



§ 


r 










■-: 


81 


C/3 


— 


6 




S 


~~ 



16 



Attachment T 
Page 7 of 13 



"S —"loo 
2 sic' -" 
<H iu « w 



ml m isi ic 

C|C CM I CM 

i- ■>— n n 



in I a 

C3I C3 

r~-l r— 
csl o 

■>=■ pT 

CM CM 



CM I CM_ 

cm"J cm' 

CM CM 



cji a 
mi m 

CM CM 



o| o 



2 O 

i •§ 

^" OS 



_ o 

-2 x" 

oj HI 

?5 CD 

en CO 



-a: — 

IS 

co ca 
2 o 



-^ x 
75 HI 
15 co 



]5 HI 

"5 CD 






r- O 

I X" 

ffl LLJ 

B ffl 

in CO 

^ E 



Z § 



■*■ o 





o 






CJ 


O 




X 


CJ 




CO 










w 


= 


5 


HI 


< 


a 



5 Z 5 e.^ 



ffl HI 






(5 


CD 
C 
X 

HI 


c 
"5 


CD 
C 
X 

HI 


o 


53 

x" 

HI 




5 

X 

HI 


_5 
IE 


a 

X* 

12J 


tn 


CO 


in 


_CD 
CO 


2 


5 


"5 

en 


CO 


75 

en 


a 

CO 


— 


c 


— 


_c 


-S 


E 


_C 


£ 


— 


C 


O 

3 


"u5 

HI 


O 

5 


"tn 
HI • 


a 
5 


"35 
HI 


o 
5 


"J/5 
111 


O 

5 


"co 

HI 


a 


~ra 


"5 


is 


03 


"co 


CJ 


"co 


o 


"5 


ai 


o 


2: 


o 


2 


o 
1— 




p 




a 



17 



Attachment T 
PageS of 13 



■ "3 



_• olo — — 



o 

a 

i— 

Q 



= c 

o <= 

s <? 

o « o 

o — c 

£ cm 



U) CM 

;? en 



u 



o 



< 5 

=) o 

en u- 

- co en 

O - la 

3: q cr 

U S 2 - 

P,<gE 
x E 



■9- C 



J coO 
OOm 
O c_ i- 

<?" ^~ HI 



< 

GO 



S uj 



CMI CM 

ni n 

CM CM 



Oi Bj 
n't ri 

oi o 



ol en o 

oi ir: CM 

rl r. -. 

, |Q 



C — tNl n 
c ec oi !■- 

C CS C-51 CM 



w «.>• r— I >~ 

a — -r '. '— 

C_ e -rj cm 

f«-' — o 



t O -r 

DrC 

O O CM 

n* O S* 
"C O c*5 



o — r- 
m cm •<- 

m »- CM 



IS —i i 



<"5 — I <T> ol 

CM C3I O CMI CM O nl 

!»• —j o_ — _. — f-_ C5 I CM 

^ CNI O lOl tO tT"" <-^'l r— " 

G CMI CM -r — 

r> m o cm cm 






5 LU 



_ c 

1 £• 



c — 



= x 

rz — 



■- o — 






O LL! 



co = - x <n 



_ 5 _ 



~ o ■«- c 



o 


u 


^r 


a 


5 




s 


> 


l 


"co 


a 


a 


^ 


o 


c 


Z 




H 


o 




B 






c 






"o 




5. 




en 


- 



a 


in 


5 


a 


■ 

•_ 


■ 


~ 


■ 


~ 


^c 
























r* 


"~* 


c 


- 



5 E £ 

Z C en 



o z a z ■= = 



- _c 

C u 

U co 



Attachment I 
Paae 9 of 13 



— a 



CMl cm 
515 



ni co 

CMl CM 
CM CM 



col n 

ICI 13 

r--i r— 
n I « 

CMl CM 
CM CM 



<T3l <n 
IOI lO 

o] q_ 

c-fl co 
101 in 



CO] P3 

pal ri 



cm! cm 

515 

a a 



CM C C I CM 

■v a oia 

lO_ CO C I CM OIC 

o" o c: i c cs*i a 

O? OlT — — 

N T H 0_ CM CM 

*-l cm" 



■■~ t^ r*. 



ir: i lt: 

CM CNI 



X o 



o o 



o 






Kuj 






E§ 






Q < 


~ 




, Z> 


c 




x to 






o — 


LL* 




— o 


lT 




u £ 

w s 


3 


g 




^~ 




o — 


^- 


n* 


- < 


GZ: 


UJ 


* 2 


C_ 


— 


P 


X 

O 


< 

> 


o O 


11J 


CO 


O C_ 


— 




CO O 


< 

2 




5£ 




Z ~~ 


W 






tu 




c: o 






u_ ■»- 






2 






< 






CO 







2 o 



S x 5 x ° 



a LL1 



-Si — ^i = 



^ - J 



.2; — .x — .=: 



5 _ 5 ™ 



^ o ^ o 



IT3 CO 

a" o 



_c _o <n jD "c5_ffl o o o o = .2 a 



_o 


X 


_c 




a 


UJ 


"c 




"5 


© 


"a 






C3 












3 


















^£ 


£5 


j-; 


3 




CO 






c 


HI 


o 


3 


3 


3 


5" 


a 


"ffl 


a 










-— 


t O 


2 


in 




i — 






c 




_o 


a 












o. 


















a 



c — j> 






- o c.o 



a 


CD 
X~ 


_5 


o 

x" 


c 


x~ 


a 


UJ 


"ra 


LU 


"5 
















- 


a> 


"5 


_o 


i5 


O 


Efl 


a 


" 


C3 


2 


re 


— 


~ 


— 


C 


— 


— 
















en 




m 




en 


a 


HI 
"cc 


J 

a 


"rc 


5 
"5 




*~ 


c 


•-- 


c 


^~ 


c 



19 



Attachment I 
Pass 10 of 13 



-5 _: of en 
— slcai o 

° sH N . 

-« — 1 m 1 n 

= XlOIC 

en uj 



'jj 



_ C3 



CIO — — 



C I c 

CI c 

OJ O 

CI c 

CI c 



r o cIn 



T- "^" O C f- 



— LTIO 



cm — rj 



n nic n 01c 
— _ m_] r- cm c 1 n 
c n i o" c" — • r-~" 



n cm 



cm -r 



ifl 



"I c*> o I o 

QIO CI C 

—J — OIO 

C ! c" c'i o" 

r*- i*^. -— 1 — 1 



C I c 

ri n 

CM CM 



O 



O ° CI 
•J — o 

= 2. C 






1 — 

— 
















O 


< 


K 




O 


CO 


C 

00 




g 




LZJ 






G 


2: 







— 
O 


3 


g 


Q 


=2 
< 


:i 


LD 




Zl 


0. 


c - 


II 




— 


X 
LU 


< 


D 


CT 


O 


> 


O 


O 


LU 


P3 


'J 


C 


l— 




-0 


O 


< 




u 




1— 








en 




< 


CD 


LU 




c: 


O 






L_ 


T_ 






z: 








< 








W 









co — 



§ LJJ = LJ 

o a a a 
— c 






-^ X 
a LU 



— a) 
O uj 
> 



JS X 



-i= x J= 



S x" 






> - X 

S ? c 



O Z c 



C 2 - 






= o 

o "C 
U cr, 



B LLI 



c — z — - 



20 



Attachment T 
Page 11 of 13 




c: r— I r-- 



-s-t -s- r--l r«- 
CMI cm in l 13 



cdi r-> 

Oi c 
n n 



l~-H r»T 

cic Ci c 



mi m 
m n 
cm"! c\T 
cni n 
C3 c-3 



cl ca 
cci a 



— h-l c 



oi o 



C CVil CM 



ml m c 



<ro 55 5 

'~ <~ ; <S CIC C r^- I f»- 

2J S! " oi O o c~1 in 

SSJS ? - SE!2 



in 



in 






o" in" 



_ 


03 




03 




03 




03 




5 




03 




03 




s 






a 


c 


C 
X 


.5 


X 


_o 


C 
X 


J5 


X* 


o 


X* 


_5 


X* 


_5 


x" 


_5 


X 


_o 




X 


£ 


111 


"5 


LU 


"ra 


LU 


1™ 


LU 


"5 


LU 


"5 


LU 


75 


LU 


"5 


LU 


"a 




Hi 


- 


c 


~ra 


03 


15 


S3 


"5 


03 


"5 


© 


"cc 


O 


"5 


CD 


"5 


a 


~c 




a 










































cc 




a 




cn 


cn 


cn 


m 


C3 


CO 


ra 


CO 


C3 


CO 


CO 


cn 




cc 




































CD 




— 




— 


c 


— 


c 


— 


e 


— 


c 


— 


c 


— 


~ 


— 


c 


— 




— 










-3C 




JC 






















a 




a 
a 






en 




cn 




CO 




CO 




CO 




cn 




CO 








UJ 


o 


LU 

15 


o 

S3 


LU 

"re 


a 

"5 


LU 

"5 


O 

5 

o 


LU 

"5 


c 
"a 


LU 

~r5 


O 

5 

CD 


LU 

"c5 


o 

CD 


LU 
5 


a 

CO 


□ 

5" 


til 

~cE 


2 


o 


2 


o 




c 




o 


ZZ. 


o 


~Z. 


O 


T 


o 




o 




CD 


c 


5 


h- 


o 


i — 


O 


h- 


CD 


l- 


a 


h- 


a 


!— 


CD 


r- 


CD 


i— 


CD 


I- 




































a 








































CL 




— 




S 




Q 




X 




X 




X 




5_ 




X 


U 





o w 



n o 



I I" 



— CD 
CJ ~ 



ui £ 



21 



Attachment T 
Page 12 of 13 



a Hi 



en m\ 



o — S 



h- 






u 






kg 












Q < 


K 




, 3 


O 






u. 

en 




o - 


LU 




— o 


K 




o 5 




c 


en o 


O 


Q C 


D 


5 


2 


HI 

Q. 


QL 


, • o 

^ — 


Hi 


< 


5£ 


Ll_ 




Hi 
> 


o o 


HI 


PJ 


O C 


u- 




00 O 


< 

— 




"c: 




^. . 


en 






HI 




cr ct 






Li_ «" 






-y 












< 






CO 







evil cm 

CMI CM 



o I — 

°l = 

c-l 6 



m I m -s- -r 



CNI CM 

mi vn 

CMI CM 



.K x S 



~r ! -r r?l n 

Q Q ci = 



oi o 

CMI CM 



ml m 

cni n 

n i n 



CMI CM 
CM CM 



— t^-l 



cic nm 
mi m cmi cm 

CM CM 



r: m — — 



i o 


o 


a 




CM 


-. 


; —_ 


SO 


CD 


i ~- 


cd" 


SB 


1 CM 




tn 





u 




a 




i 




CO 




O 




c 






































o 


x" 


_o 


x" 


.2 


x~ 


_c 


x" 


s 


x" 


_o 


x" 




_c 




■ 


Hi 


i§ 


Hi 


re 


Hi 


■ 


Hi 


a 


Hi 


a 






• 




a 


o 


"ra 


CD 


"c 


o 


a 


a 


To 


O 


~c 


a 




— 




























en 








ra 


</i 


ra 


V) 


ra 




ra 




c 




ra 
































_C 




c 








































































































J£ 








c 




s 




t/i 




in 




i/j 




in 




m 




tn 








> 


Hi 


c 

> 


Hi 


> 


Hi 


> 


Hi 


> 


Hi 


c 


Hi 


i 


c 
-• 


o 




























































B 


ra 


S3 


ra 


o 


ra 


o 




CO 


ra 


o 


ra 








































o 




o 


-1. 






C 








c 








Jr 


u. 


V? 


'r— 


Jr 


h- 


£j 


'r— 


Jn 


:— 




■— 


o 


- 


~* 



O- en 

U Z 



22 



cm cm 



J-jCi I C3 

m f 



,_ e 



la we 

— c 



HI 

-z. 

< s 

p o 

en "- 

c/3 co 

— lu 

Q CI 

21 P Q 
< Hi li! 

z e:^ 



r^£ > 



CO O 

O uj 

s 

O 



ffl 


UJ 


~5 


CD 






Ul 


CO 














^rC 






01 


a 
> 


LU 










03 


CB 








O 


m 


:- 





en 


c 


LU 


c 


§ 






u 




cc 




6 






rj 





le 



cm! cm o cki o 

CIC M CICM 1- 

m 1 in" cm o~i cm cc 

ala -r niN c= 

CM CM CM 



en LU 



3 - j. v- 

_£ _C5 CO CO 



S r- 



r— est cc 



^ X ° X = 



ffl LU 
CO CD 



a 
3 



5 


LU 



5 


LU 







"m 


CO 


75 




a 








Z 


C. 


O 


"Z. 


c 


a 


_j 


H 


CO 


:- 




CJ 


























e. 


P 




c 











CO 




LU 




JE 




3 


u 


< 


CJ 


CO 




a 


r 




5 


c 


~ 



ml in 
r-l r- 
ol o 



Attachment T 
Page 13 of 13 



ss 

01 c 

01 c 
ci c: 



_c p 







cn 






co 


> 


0) 


c 


LU 





LU 










"5 


CC 


CO 


"c3 






CZ 






O 




Q 


CJ 


H 


CO 
CO 




3 










23 



Pane I 

©IF USD SAN FRANCISCO 

UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT 

FACTLrTES KJUMBK & CONST2UC7I0N 

Maiiraiirn 

To: Alan Gibson, Budge: Anaiysi 

CC: Enrique N'avas. CFO 

From: Tim Trons 

Date: 09/10/99 

Re: Advance Lxrxndhurcs 



In accordance with your request. I am providing you with the San Francisco Unified School 
District's ("District/') reasons and information related to advance expenditures of the 
anticipated proceeds from the General Obligation Bonds (Education Facility Bond, 1997A - 
San Francisco Unified School DistrictX Series 1999B for educational mTorovetnents. The 
issues are as fbilows: 

1- Since the passage of the Proposition A on June 3, 1997, the District has orocceded 

with the planning, review and construction of its bond funded project. Because of 
the pendancy of the SF 49ers" case and bond counsel's position, the District couic not 
sell the bonds to pay for the projects. Therefore, the District has fronted the costs of 
these projects from its own fund sources. Tne District has proceeded wnh these 
projects for the following reasons: 

(1 ) Long planning lead-time (see paragraph 2 beiow). 

(2) Availability of Stats funding (see paragraph 3 beiow). 

(3) Several of the projects affected the hearth and safety of the District's students 
and employees. The D'.strict intends tc use a portion of its bend proceeds for 
such projects, inchidirjg structural upgrades of buildings that do not meet 
current seismic codes. 

(4) Several of the projects improved the abiiity of students and emcicvees with 
disabilities tc utile: the District's facilities. Tne District intends to - jse a 
portion of is bond proceeds to address facilities issues that final access to 
persons with aisabiiities. 

(5) Tne implementation of classroom recuctcn srztewide has piaces severe 
constraints on this District's ability to house elementary school children. The 
average "students per classroom loading schedule"" (statewide) has cone rrc— . 
32 students per classroom to 20 students per classroom. Conseaneadalh , the 



jv-7 •- TSTeta 4 ?:- Q " n tr -"X7-'-^ HA 9-U24TrleDhone f4151 695-5300 faa (415) 695-5667 



;_--__ 



Attachmeii t tt 
"■fage 2 c= 3*"' 



September 1 0. 1999 



52 students per classroom to 20 students per classroom. Cotiseonsatiairv, the 
demand for elementary school facilities has exceeded the suppry since the 
District houses far less students on the same school she. In San Francisco 
we arc accommodating a portion of the student housing needs with the bond 
proceeds. These projects include the pianning and construction of the new 
Parkside Elementary School, three new academic wings (Sheridan ES, Claire 
Liiienthai ES, Alice Pong Yu ES), a gymnasium, and an auditorium. 

Tne typical overall planning, review and construction process takes 24-36 months 
depending on the scope of the project. Tne District does not go throush the Chv 
Planning Department, for its plan review process, the construction rffadihies, or the 
completion of improvements. The District goes through the Department of the Stats 
Architect (DSA) for its plan review. This process takes approximately sis to eiaht 
months. In addition to DSA, the District goes through a Department of Education 
(DEA) review (usually 1-2 months) and a review by the Office of Public School 
Construction (OPSC) review (2-3 months). Tne District is also required to plan the 
site development or improvement in advance of these reviews. Tnis process, 
depending on the scope of the project, takes from 12-18 months. 

Ehiring this process, the District retains the services of a professional archite ct and all 
of the engineering trades (electrical, mechanical, gee-technical and structural) to 
complete the project plans and specifications. Tne District pays for all of these 
services and the design review as they are completed and in advance of State 
approval and funding and bidding approval. ^ Tien this process is finished and the 
project is placed out to bid, the District awards and funds the completion of the 
project through a general contractor. The typical construction project runs 12-18 
months. Considering the above information, the District had planned and prepared for 
bid a number of projects that were included within the bond proposal. 'When the 
bond passed, these projects were piaced out to bid and awarded-to general contractors 
for construction. Tnese projects are currently under construction. 

As you know, the District intends to utilize bond proceeds, bond interest earnings, 
and all of its other sources of revenue to build facilities, modernize facilities, 
augment existing facilities, and complete seismic and technology infrastructure 
improvements throughout the City and County of San Francisco. Since the passage 
of the Proposition A on June 3, 1997, the District has proceeded with the piarm in c, 
review and project application process with the State for seventeen (17) District sites. 
Tnese 1 7 projects are shared funding projects, meaning that the Scats will fund 80% 
(eighty) of the improvement project and the District will fund 20%. The total value 
of the imp rovement work to be completed on the 1 7 sites is 549,642.466.00. Tne 
State's 80% share amounts to S3 9.7 1 3. 972. 80 with the District's poru'en equaling 
59,928,493.20. Tne District was anticipating the utiiization of the interest earnings 
from the bond proceeds and ether source funds to meet its commitment on these 
projects. Without the use of these interest earnings from the bond pia. - Hs the 
District -will be unabie to proceed with the development of these projects. 






Attachment 

-age j c: 2 



SectemDBr 10. 1999 



Addirianaiiy, Sine fund ranis are limited in both the amount and the duration of 
avaiiabiiicv. If the District had been unable to proceed with the development of these 
projects by February !998, it was lf*eiy that the District would have lest the State's 
commitment to fund ks 80% share of S39.7I3,972.S0. 



Thanks 
Tim Tronson 



26 

-9/23 'e i9=c c== c-r 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

September 29, 1999 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



Item 4 -File 99-1699 
Department: 

Item: 

Amount: 
Source of Funds: 
Description: 

Budget: 



Public Utilities Commission (PUC) 
Water Department 

Ordinance appropriating $300,000 to fund landslide 
repairs on land owned by the Water Department located 
behind the Crystal Springs Pump Station, in San Mateo 
County. 

$300,000 

Water Operating Fund - Unappropriated Fund Balance 

This supplemental appropriation would fund, in the 
amount of $300,000, for repairing and stabilizing the 
landslide on land owned by the Water Department behind 
the Crystal Springs Pump Station, in San Mateo County. 

The proposed budget is summarized as follows: 



Expenditure Item Amount 

Geotechnical consultant (AGS Inc.) $57,000 

Construction contract (Miller Thompson Constructors) 193,063 

PUC engineering, inspection, administration 49,937 

TOTAL $300,000 



A more detailed budget and budget explanations are 
contained in Attachments I and II, provided by Mr. 
SureshPatelofthePUC. 

Attachment I outlines the problems related to this 
potential disruption to the electrical power supply and the 
chronology of PUC actions taken after the President of the 
PUC declared an emergency on May 5, 1999 to expedite 
the repair and stabilization of the landslide. As shown in 
Attachment I, the total budget for this project is $280,000, 
or $20,000 less than the requested budget of $300,000. 
The $280,000 includes: (a) $57,000 for AGS Inc., a 
geotechnical consultant which is working for the PUC 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



27 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

September 29, 1999 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

under an emergency agreement due to the emergency 
declaration; (b) $193,063 for the construction contract 
awarded to Miller Thompson Constructors, the low 
bidder; and (c) $29,937 for PUC staff engineering, 
inspection and administration costs. 

Attachment II, also provided by Mr. Patel. further breaks 
down the proposed budget of $29,937 for PUC staff 
engineering, inspection and administration costs. The 
total shown in Attachment II is $29,807, or $130 less than 
$29,937. 

When the total reduced cost requirements are combined, 
they amount to $20,130 ($20,000 plus $130). Savings of 
$20,130 would reduce the requested appropriation from 
$300,000 to $279,870. 

Comments: 1. According to Mr. Patel. in March 1999 a portion of the 

City-owned hillside behind the Crystal Springs Pump 
Station failed, destroying a concrete retaining wall 
bordering the adjacent electrical substation at the Crystal 
Springs Pump Station. As a temporary measure, the 
owner of the electrical substation, Pacific Gas and Electric 
Company, undertook temporary repairs on the retaining 
wall. Mr. Patel advises that in early May 1999. the PUC 
discovered that the landslide was still active and 
threatened to eventually damage the electrical substation 
which could have disrupted the electrical power supply 
from that electrical substation to the Crystal Springs 
Pump Station. 

2. According to Mr. Patel, the PUC entered into an 
agreement with AGS Inc. for emergency geotechnical 
services in the amount of $57,000. The agreement sets 
maximum limits of (a) $26,000 for geotechnical 
investigation, (b) $21,000 for engineering design, and (c) 
$10,000 for review and construction support. 

4. Attachment I also includes a list of the construction 
companies which submitted bids for this emergency repair 
work. As shown in Attachment I, Miller Thompson 
Constructors submitted the low bid of $193,063 and was 
awarded the construction contract. According to Mr. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

28 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

September 29, 1999 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

Patel, the PUC has paid Miller Thompson Constructors 
$179,602 to date. 

5. As previously noted, $29,807 rather than $49,937 is 
needed for the costs of PUC staff time which will be 
expended on engineering, inspection, and administrative 
tasks. The amount of $29,807 is $20,130 less than the 
amount of $49,937 requested for such work. Therefore, 
the total amount needed for this request is $279,870 or 
$20,130 less than the requested $300,000. 

6. The work on the subject landslide repair began in May 
of 1999 and is anticipated to be completed in October of 
1999. 

Recommendations: 1. In accordance with Comment No. 5 above, amend the 

proposed ordinance to reduce the supplemental 
appropriation by $20,130, from $300,000 to $279,870. 

2. Approve the proposed ordinance as amended. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

29 




Sent By: CCSF-PUC / UEB; Attachment t 

' Page 1 0+-: 3 

PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION 

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 

WILLIE L BROWN. JB . UAYOK 

ANSON B MORAN. GENERAL UMIAOCK 

MICHAEL E OUAN. UAHACfK 

ANN MOLLER CAEN SAN FRANCISCO 

PRES[DENT WATER DEPARTMENT 

FRANK L. COOK HETCH HETCHY 

VICE PRESIDENT WATER AND POWER 

E DENNIS NORMANDY SAN FRANCISCO 

VICTOR G. MAKRAS CLEAN WATER PROGHAM 
BEN L. HOM 

September 21, 1939 

Mr. Harvey Rose 

Board of Supervisors' Budget Analyst 

1390 Market St, suite 1025 

San Francisco, Ca 94102 

Re: File 99-1699 Crystal Springs Pump Station Emergency Landslide Repairs - Supplemental 
Appropriation 

This is in response to Mr .Alan Gibson of your staff requesting information on the above 
emergency project. 

An emergency was declared by PUC, San Francisco Water Department, on May 5, 1999 to repair 
and stabilize the landslide, which occurred immediately behind the electrical substation The 
emergency declaration was ratified by the PUC board on June 22, 1999 This substation is located 
adjacent to and supplies power to the Crystal Springs Pump Station These two facilities are 
important and critical facilities of the San Francisco water supply system as they are used to 
transport water from the Crystal Springs Reservoir to the San Andreas Reservoir. 

In May 1999, AGS lnc, geotechnical consultants were retained by the PUC, under an emergency 
contract/agreement, to perform geotechnical investigation of the landslide and prepare 
construction plans and specifications for its repair The consultants completed the design in June 
of 1999. Bids for the project were received from four contractors on June 1 1, 1999. Miller 
Thompson Constructors submitted the low bid of $193,062 50 and were awarded the 
construction contract PUC staff managed and inspected the construction work. 

The budget for the emergency project is as follows: 

Consultant Services - Geotechnical Investigation and S 57,000.00 

Preparation of design documents 

Construction Contract - Miller Thompson Constructors $193,062 50 

PUC - Engineering, Inspection and management $ 23,000.00 

UTILITIES ENGINEERING BUREAU - PROJECT MANAGEMENT DIVISION 
1 155 MARKET STREET. 5TH FLOOR • SAN FRANCISCO. CAUFORNLA 94103 • (415) 554-0716 • (415)554-1877 



30 



Jy: CCSF-PUC / UEB; Page 'I o: 

PUC - contract closeout $ 6.937.50 

Total Project Cost $280.000.00 

The consultant services comprised of (1) geotechnical investigation, which included drilling and 
testing, engineering analysis, recommendations and report ($26,000); (2) engineering design and 
preparing plans and specifications for construction ($21,000) and (3) review of shop drawings and 
other construction support during construction ($10,000). The construction contract comprised 
of the various items shown on the bid sheet, attached hereto. PUC design cost comprised of 
engineering services (site investigation, review of consultant's design and inspection $3,000); 
inspection of construction work ($1 1,000); and project management (preparation of agenda items, 
consultant agreements, contract administration $9,000). Contract closeout item includes preparing 
final construction documents, management and administrative work for contract acceptance and 
PUC approval. 

Given the emergency nature of the situation, PUC initiated design and repair work using 
temporary funding from an existing Water Capital project. A supplemental appropriation request 
in the amount of $350,000 to cover all project costs was approved by the PUC. Total 
expenditures are now estimated at $280,000. If you have any questions, please give me a call at 
554-1807. 



Sincerely, 




>uresh Patel 
Project Manager 

Cc. C Jacobo 
chronfile 



31 



Sent By: CCSF-PUC / UEB; 



E 2 

E ~ 



i-2 

o a 



C £ 

— c 

S o 

2 O 



UJ 

o 
cr 
a. 
d 

CD 
UL 

o 

_l 

Q 

LLI 

X 

o 

CO 

z 
o 

CO 
CO 



CO « °> 

Sag; 



y z 



5 1 



O 

—i 
<n 
r> 

CL 



« OJO 

ra cii O 
OH CDUJX 



flciacnrntni i 
Page 'J of" 3 



3 O =■ Q. 

^; * ° e 
; gc |1 

i ? I £ - 

' 1 1 * e 

o> <o ■ _ 
« -o 3 .2: 

■5 c o <° 
_ CO -o t ■ 

! g 8g» 

' «; -O On. 

! CO Q) t— 

| CO O.TD _ 

iaf"5 I' 

" m a. S ■ 
a. S U 



£ E 



c « 5 



s o. 

S o 
o o 



B A 

C — 

■5 E 

s« 

CO 

1 i 



5 £ 



t5 ™ .= 



32 



By: CCSF-PUC / UEB; 



Attachment II 



MEMORANDUM 



Date; September 24, 1999 

To: Alan Gibson 

Budget Analyst Office 
From: Suresh Patel 

Subject: Crystal Springs Pump Station Emergency Landslide Repairs 

As requeted, below is the details for PUC engineering services: 
Design: 



Engineering 


Classification 


Title 


Hrs 


Rate 


Total 




5206 


Associate Civil Engineer 


40 


71.20 


2848.00 




5210 


Senior Civil Engineer 


4 


95.41 


381.64 


Inspection 


6318 


Inspector 


160 . 


67.12 


10.739.20 


Project rmnac 


5504 


Project manager H 


100 


88.52 


8852.00 


Total 










22,820.84 



Closeout: 



Enginering 


5366 


Engineering Assoc II 


24 


6120 


1468.80 


Inspection 


6318 


Inspector 


40 


67.12 


26*4.80 


Project manag 


5504 


Project Manager II 


32 


8852 


2832.64 


Total 










6,986.24 



Please call me if you need any additional information. 



Cc: C Jacobo 



33 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

September 29, 1999 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



Item 5 -File 99-1701 

Department: 

Item: 



Superior Court 

Ordinance setting schedules of compensation and other 
economic benefits for FY 1999-2000 for certain classifications 
of employees of the Superior Court. 



Source of Funds: State Trial Court Agency Fund 



Description: 



According to Mr. David Greenburg of the City Attorney's 
Office, although the proposed ordinance to set the schedule of 
compensation for certain classifications of Superior Court 
employees requires approval by the Board of Supervisors in 
accordance with California Government Code Section 69900, 
the City is not be liable for any costs incurred in providing 
the wages or other benefits set forth in this ordinance since 
such costs have been assumed by the State. However, the 
proposed ordinance states that the City continues to have the 
responsibility for administering health and retirement 
benefits and payroll processing. 

The proposed ordinance would fix compensation and other 
economic benefits for 16 classifications, covering a total of 
218 employees in the Superior Court for the one-year period 
retroactive from July 1, 1999 through June 30, 2000. The 
proposed ordinance, which relates to employees who are not 
represented by an employee organization, would be adopted 
pursuant to California Government Code Section 69900, and 
would establish economic conditions of employment and the 
methods of employee compensation. 

The Superior Court employees covered by the proposed 
ordinance are as follows: 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

34 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

September 29, 1999 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



Classification Current No. of Position- 



280 Deputy Clerk 

285 Executive Secretary 


34 

1 


287 Administrative Secretary 


1 


289 Personnel/Payroll Director 


1 


290 Deputy Clerk 

293 Interpreter Coordinator 

297 Deputy Clerk 

320 Deputy Clerk 

330 Deputy Clerk 

340 Information Clerk 


22 

1 

1 

27 

64 

2 


342 Information Clerk Supervi-ur 


1 


678 Executive Secretary 
350 Court Reporter 
710 Court Reporter 
255 Court Commissioner 


2 
20 
37 

3 


215 Bail Commissioner 


1 



Total 218 

The major fiscal provisions regarding the above 16 
classifications covering a total of 218 positions in the 
Superior Court are as follow- 

Wage Increases 

The proposed ordinance would provide wage increases 
totaling 3.25 percent for FY 1999-2000, retroactively to July 
1, 1999, to all of the employee classifications listed above, 
except for Classes 215 Bail Commissioner, 255 Court 
Commissioner, 350 Court Reporter and 710 Court Reporter, 
based on the following schedule: 

Date Percent Wage Increase 

July 1. 1999 1.75 percent 

December 25, 1999 1.50 percent 

Total 3.25 percent 

Classes 215 Bail Commissioner and 255 Court Commissioner 
would not receive a wage increase under the proposed 
ordinance, because their salaries are tied to those of Superior 
Court Judges, who received a salary increase effective July 1. 
1999, according to Ms. Cheryl Martin. Personnel Manager of 
the Superior Court. The resulting salary increase for both 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

35 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

September 29, 1999 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



Classes 215 Bail Commissioner and 255 Court Commissioner 
was 2.5 percent, according to Ms. Martin. 

Ms. Martin states that Classes 350 Court Reporter and 710 
Court Reporter would not receive a wage increase under the 
proposed ordinance, because their salaries are set by 
California Government Code Section 70050.5. to match those 
of Court Reporters in the City of Los Angeles, who received a 
salary increase effective July 1, 1999. The resulting wage 
increase for both Classes 350 and 710 Court Reporters at the 
first and top steps was approximately 2 percent, according to 
Ms. Martin. 

Longevity Pay 

All employees in the classifications listed above, who have 
completed a total of 10 years of service with the Superior 
Court and/or for the City, will continue to receive an 
additional $0.30 per hour for longevity pay effective July 1, 
1999, except for Classes 215 Bail Commissioner, 255 Court 
Commissioner, 350 Court Reporter and 710 Court Reporter. 
Ms. Martin advises that $0.30 per hour was 
the same amount of longevity pay granted in FY 1998-99. 

According to the proposed ordinance, effective July 1, 1998, 
any employee who voluntarily moves to another classification 
will not be eligible for longevity pay until he/she serves 10 
continuous years in the new classification. In addition, any 
employee who currently receives longevity pay will continue 
to receive such pay unless he/she voluntarily moves to 
another classification. Such employee would then be 
required to serve 10 continuous years in the new 
classification in order to receive longevity pay. 

Health and Dental Care Benefits 

According to the proposed ordinance, the following health 
and dental benefits would apply to all employees in the 
classifications listed above, except those in Classes 215 Bail 
Commissioner and 255 Court Commissioner. 

• The Court would continue to pick-up employees' health 
benefits at a level set annually in accordance with the 
requirements of Appendix A8.423 of the Charter for the 
City's Health Service System. The level of health care 
benefits for FY 1999-2000 would be $2,170 per employee 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

36 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

September 29, 1999 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



per year, or $73 more than the $2,097 provided in FY 
1998-99, according to Ms. Patricia Wu of the City's Health 
Service System. 

• Additionally, $225 per employee per month would be paid 
toward dependent health care benefits, retroactive to July 
1, 1999, and continuing for the duration of FY 1999-2000. 
Ms. Martin reports that $225 per employee per month 
was the same amount of dependent health care benefits 
paid in FY 1998-99. 

• The level of dental coverage for FY 1999-2000 would be 
$887 per each employee and family dependent, which is 
the same level as in FY 1998-1999. 

Retirement Pick-Up 

For the period July 1, 1999 through June 30, 2000, the Court 
would continue to pick-up employees' share of retirement 
contributions to the City's Employees Retirement System in 
the following percentages: 

• 8 percent of salary for Tier I members (employees hired 
prior to November 1976); and 

• 7.5 percent of salary for Tier II members (employees hired 
after November 1976). 

State Disability Insurance 

According to the proposed ordinance, upon a vote of at least 
50 percent plus one of the employees in the classifications 
listed above, except those in Classes 215 Bail Commissioner 
and 255 Court Commissioner, in support of being enrolled in 
the State Disability Insurance (SDI) Program at the 
employee's cost, the Board of Supervisors would take any and 
all necessary actions to enroll such employees in the SDI 
Program. The cost of the SDI Program would be paid by the 
employee through payroll deduction at a rate established by 
the State of California Employment Development 
Department. 

Floating Holidays 

Employees of the classifications noted above, except for 
Classes 215 Bail Commissioner and 255 Court 
Commissioner, would continue to receive four floating 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

37 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

September 29, 1999 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



Comments: 



holidays per year. Ms. Martin advises that Classes 215 Bail 
Commissioner and 255 Court Commissioner would not 
receive any floating holidays. The subject four floating 
holidays are granted from July 1, 1999 through June 30, 
2000, except for Classes 350 Court Reporter and 710 Court 
Reporter. Classes 350 Court Reporter and 710 Court 
Reporter would receive four floating holidays based on a 
calendar year instead of a fiscal year. 

1. As shown in the Attachment, the Controller's Office 
estimates that the subject proposed ordinance will result in 
incremental costs of $227,092 for FY 1999-2000 and $62,976 
in FY 2000-2001. In addition, according to Ms. Peg 
Stevenson of the Controller's Office, this ordinance will result 
in on-going incremental costs of approximately $290,000. 
Ms. Stevenson states that these costs are based on 161 
employees (218 total Superior Court employees less 57 
employees in Classes 350 Court Reporter and 710 Court 
Reporter). As previously noted, all costs resulting from the 
subject proposed ordinance are fully funded by the State. 
The Budget Analyst concurs with the Controller's cost 
estimates. 



2. The proposed ordinance has been approved by a majority 
of the Judges of the Superior Court in accordance with 
California Government Code Section 69900, which states 
"Rates of compensation of all officers and assistants and 
other employees may be altered by joint action and approval 
of the board of supervisors and a majority of the judges of the 
court." 



Recommendation: 



Approval of the proposed ordinance is a policy matter for the 
Board of Supervisors. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

38 



» UZ:,Zp„ From-CCSF CONTROLLER OFFICE + 4 J 5-554-74EE T-21, Pape 1 of 2 

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO OFFICE OF THE CONTROLLE1 




Edward Harringia 
Control!* 



September 24, 1999 



Ms. Gloria L. Young, Clerk of the Board 

Board of Supervisors 

City Hall. Room 244 

1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlctt Place 

San Francisco, CA 94102 

RE: Ordinance establishing Compensation for Trial Court Employees 
File No. 99-1701 

Dear Ms. Young: 

In accordance with Ordinance 92-94, I am submitting a cost analysis of an ordinance fixing compensation 
for certain classifications of Trial Court employees for fiscal year 1 999-2000. The ordinance covers the 
period July 1, 1999 through June 30, 2000, and affects approximately 161 employees with a salary base of 
approximately $7.3 million. 

Based on our analysis, the ordinance will result in incremental costs of approximately $227,000 in FY 
1999-2000, and $63,000 in FY 2000-2001. The ordinance will result in a cost increase of approximately 
3.1% above base salaries for FY 1999-2000. Please see Attachment A for specific cost estimates. 

The cost of salaries and benefits for the employees covered under this ordinance are budgeted through the 
Trial Courts Agency Fund and paid for by the State of California. If you have any additional questions or 
concerns please contact me at 554-7500 or Peg Stevenson of my staff at 554-7522. 




■ coward M. Harrington 
Controller 



Alice Villagomez, ERD 
Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst 



Ciiy Hall • 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlcn Place • Room 316 • Sao FninuKO CA M10J-4694 



FAX41SS**-" 



39 



nt.iawi rrom-LLii- LUNTROLLER OFFICE 



Attachment A 
Trial Court Classifications 
Estimated Costs 1999-2000 
Controller's Office 



+4t 5-554-7466 



T-2H P. 03/03 F-665 

Attachment 
Page 2 of 2 



Annual Incremental CostsKSavinasl 

Wage Increase 1.75% on July 1 and 1.5% on Dec. 25 

Wage-Related Fringe Increases 

Total Estimated Incremental Costs 
Annual Amount Above 1998-99 Level 
Cumulative Total Above 1998-99 Provisions 
Incremental Cost % of Salary Base 



FY 1999-2000 FY 2000-2001 1 

$194,345 553,895 

32,747 9,081 



227.092 



227,092 



62,976 



290,068 
$517,161 

3.10% 0.88% 



Amount shown is due to annualization of the prior year increase 



40 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

September 29, 1999 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

Item 6 - File 99-1644 

Note: This item was continued by the Finance and Labor Committee at its 
meeting of September 12, 1999. 



Department: 
Item: 



Amount: 
Description: 



Mayor's Office of Public Finance 

Resolution (a) approving the form of, and authorizing the 
execution and delivery by the City and County of San 
Francisco of Equipment Lease Supplement No. 8, between 
the City and County of San Francisco Finance 
Corporation, as lessor, and the City and County of San 
Francisco, as lessee, with respect to equipment to be used 
for City purposes, and providing for the related Certificate 
of Approval and a continuing Disclosure Certificate; (b) 
approving the issuance of Series 1999A Lease Revenue 
Bonds by said nonprofit corporation in an amount not to 
exceed $9,800,000; (c) providing for reimbursement to the 
City of certain City expenditures incurred prior to the 
issuance of Series 1999A Lease Revenue Bonds; (d) 
providing for the execution of documents in connection 
therewith; and (e) ratifying actions previously taken. 

Not to exceed $9,800,000 

In June of 1990, San Francisco voters approved 
Proposition C, a Charter amendment which authorized 
the Board of Supervisors to authorize and approve the 
lease-financing of equipment purchases for the City 
through a nonprofit public benefit corporation, the San 
Francisco Finance Corporation. The equipment leased by 
the City is purchased by the San Francisco Finance 
Corporation with the proceeds of lease revenue bonds. 

According to Ms. Sarah Hollenbeck of the Mayor's Office 
of Public Finance, the City has issued lease revenue 
bonds for the procurement of equipment on an annual 
basis since FY 1990-91, with the exception of FY 1996-97 
when such issuance was delaj^ed until the following fiscal 
year. The Mayor's Office is now requesting authorization 
to issue up to $9,800,000 in City and County of San 
Francisco Corporation Lease Revenue Bonds, Series 
1999A (hereafter referred to as "Series 1999A Lease 
Revenue Bonds"), for the acquisition, construction, and 
installation of equipment previously approved by the 
Board of Supervisors in the FY 1999-2000 budget. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

41 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

September 29, 1999 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



Interest rates on lease revenue bonds issued by nonprofit 
corporations are generally lower than the interest on 
other financing instruments, because of the tax-exempt 
status of investments in non-profit corporations. 
Proposition C requires that the San Francisco Finance 
Corporation not issue lease revenue bonds for equipment 
purchase unless the Controller certifies that the interest 
costs to the City will be lower through the San Francisco 
Finance Corporation than through the other financing 
instruments such as third party vendors. Under the 
proposed resolution, the Controller is required to certify 
that the interest rates are lower through the San 
Francisco Finance Corporation prior to the sale of the 
proposed Series 1999A Lease Revenue Bonds. According 
to Ms. Peg Stevenson of the Controller's Office, the 
Controller has certified that the interest rates to the city 
would be lower through the San Francisco Financing 
Corporation than through other financing instruments 
(see Comment 5 below). 

In accordance with Proposition C, the total outstanding 
indebtedness of the San Francisco Finance Corporation 
may not exceed a principal amount of $20 million at any 
given time beginning in FY 1990-91, with the limit 
increasing by five percent in each subsequent fiscal year. 
The maximum amount of allowable indebtedness in FY 
1999-2000 is $31,026,564 according to Ms. Hollenbeck. 

The Board of Supervisors has previously authorized the 
issuance by the San Francisco Finance Corporation of up 
to $73,569,707 in lease revenue bonds, of which 
$67,315,000 was actually issued, to finance the purchase 
of equipment, as follows: 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

42 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

September 29, 1999 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 





Authorized 


Fiscal Year 


Lease Revenue Bonds 


1990-91 


$ 7,304,707 


1991-92 


Up to 10,000,000 


1992-93 


Up to 10,200,000 


1993-94 


Up to 7,000,000 


1994-95 


Up to 6,500,000 


1995-96 


Up to 7,065,000 


1996-97 





1997-98 


Up to 14,000,000 


1998-99 


Uoto 11,500,000 



TOTAL Up to $73,569,707 

As noted above, the San Francisco Finance Corporation 
has been authorized to issue up to $73,569,707 since FY 
1990-91 in lease revenue bonds to procure equipment on 
behalf of the City. According to the Mayor's Office of 
Public Finance, the actual amount of lease revenue bonds 
issued by the San Francisco Finance Corporation, the 
amounts which have been repaid, and the outstanding 
indebtedness as of October 1, 1999 will be as follows: 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

43 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

September 29, 1999 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



Senes 1991A Bonds 

Lease Purchase Revenue Bonds Issued ST, 020, 000 

Repayment to Date 7,020,000 

Outstanding Indebtedness: Series 199 1A: $ 

Series 1992A Bonds 

Lease Purchase Revenue Bonds Issued $5,555,000 

Repayment to Date 5,555,000 

Outstanding Indebtedness: Series 1992A: 

Series 1993 A Bonds 

Lease Purchase Revenue Bonds Issued S10, 200,000 

Repayment to Date 10,020.000 

Outstanding Indebtedness: Series 1993A: 180,000 

Series 1994A Bonds 

Lease Purchase Revenue Bonds Issued $6,850,000 

Repayment to Date 6.280.000 

Outstanding Indebtedness: Series 1994A: 570,000 

Series 1995A Bonds 

Lease Purchase Revenue Bonds Issued $6,075,000 

Repayment to Date 6.055,000 

Outstanding Indebtedness: Series 1995A: 20,000 

Series 1996A Bonds 

Lease Purchase Revenue Bonds Issued $7,065,000 

Repayment to Date 6,425,000 

Outstanding Indebtedness: Series 1996A: 640,000 

Senes 1997A Bonds $13,715,000 

Lease Purchase Revenue Bonds Issued 4.320.000 

Payment to date 

Outstanding Indebtedness: Series 1997A: 9,395,000 

Series 1998A Bonds $10,835,000 

Lease Purchase Revenue Bonds Issued 1.490,000 

Payment to Date 

Outstanding Indebtedness: Series 1998A: 9,345,000 

Projected Total Outstanding Indebtedness at 

10/01/99 $20,150,000 

Total Allowable Indebtedness S31,026.564 

Total Allowable Indebtedness Winch Will Still 

Be Available at 10/01/99 $10,876,564 

For FY 1999-2000. Proposition C established $31. 026.564 
as the maximum level of allowable indebtedness. As of 
October 1. 1999. it is projected that the amount of 
outstanding Proposition C indebtedness will be 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

September 29, 1999 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



820,150,000, resulting in an available balance of 
S10,876.564 in unused debt capacity for equipment lease 
financing in FY 1999-2000. 

The proposed resolution would authorize the issuance of 
new Series 1999A Lease Revenue Bonds in FY 1999-2000 
in an amount not to exceed 59,800,000. This is within the 
San Francisco Finance Corporation's projected October 1, 
1999 unused debt capacity for equipment lease financing 
under Proposition C of 810,876,564 for FY 1999-2000. 
Ms. Hollenbeck estimates that the Series 1999A Lease 
Revenue Bonds will be sold on a competitive basis on 
October 20, 1999. 

According to Ms. Hollenbeck, the bond trustee for the San 
Francisco Finance Corporation will act as a bank for 
equipment purchases. Ms. Hollenbeck explains that 
various City departments have budgeted the annual lease 
payment within their FY 1999-2000 departmental 
budgets, as previously approved by the Board of 
Supervisors. Ms. Hollenbeck reports that the amount of 
the annual lease payments for the proposed Series 1999A 
Lease Revenue Bonds in FY 1999-2000 is approximately 
$174,000. This amount has been approved in the FY 
1999-2000 budget under the General City Responsibility 
budget. A total of $10,923,000, including principal of 
$9,595,000 and interest of $1,328,000, would be paid over 
the six year term of the leases for the equipment listed in 
the Attachment provided by Ms. Hollenbeck. Ms. 
Hollenbeck reports that, pending authorization of the 
proposed resolution, the San Francisco Finance 
Corporation will sell bonds to prospective investors and 
will subsequently purchase the equipment on behalf of 
the City using the proceeds from the lease revenue bond 
funds. City departments will then make annual lease 
payments to the San Francisco Finance Corporation, 
which in turn will use these funds to repay the lease 
revenue bond interest and redemption. 

In addition, the proposed resolution provides for (a) 
reimbursement to the City of up to $194,116 for bond 
issuance costs related to the proposed issuance of the 
Series 1999A Lease Revenue Bonds which have to be 
made prior to the actual date of issuance, (b) the 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

45 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

September 29, 1999 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

execution of documents needed to implement the proposed 
resolution, and (c) the ratification of actions previously 
taken. 

The annual budgets of City departments must include the 
amount of the City's annual lease-purchase payments 
(including principal and interest) for equipment procured 
through the San Francisco Finance Corporation. Since 
these payments are required under the terms of the lease- 
purchase agreement with the San Francisco Finance 
Corporation, the annual payments become fixed costs of 
City departments for the term of the lease revenue bond 
repayment period, once the equipment has been procured 
and acquired by the San Francisco Finance Corporation. 
As noted above, City departments will make lease 
payments to the San Francisco Financing Corporation, 
which in turn will use such funds to repay the bond funds. 

Comments: 1. The Attachment to this report, provided by Ms. 

Hollenbeck, contains a list of the equipment to be 
acquired, including (a) the applicable departments, (b) the 
number of units, and (c) the equipment costs, as 
previously approved by the Board of Supervisors in the 
FY 1999-2000 budget. As shown in the Attachment, total 
equipment costs are $8,005,943. 

The estimated total project costs of $9,595,000 in Series 
1999A Lease Revenue Bonds are as follows: 

Equipment Costs $8,005,943 

Required Reserve Fund 1 959,500 

Bond Issuance Costs 194,116 

Capitalized Interest 2 435.441 

TOTAL $9,595,000 



1 Lease Revenue bonds have a legally required Reserve Fund equal, in this case, to 10 percent of the 
principal amount of the bonds. 

2 Pursuant to State law, the City cannot make any interest payments on lease revenue bonds until 
the City has received the equipment. However, interest on the lease revenue bonds begins accruing 
when the bonds are sold regardless of when the equipment is eventually purchased and received by 
the City. Therefore, capitalized interest, estimated in the amount of $435,441, must be paid from 
proceeds of the Series 1999A Revenue Lease Bonds until such a time as the equipment is actually 
received by the City and interest payments can be made from funds appropriated in the City budget. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

46 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

September 29, 1999 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



2. The actual interest costs to the City of the proposed 
equipment lease-purchases cannot be determined 
precisely, because the interest rate will depend on 
prevailing financial market interest rates when the Series 
1999A Lease Revenue Bonds are actually sold. Interest 
costs will also vary for each equipment item purchased 
based on the number of years in the repayment period for 
the item, which cannot exceed the useful life of the 
equipment. 

Ms. Hollenbeck estimates that, if the proposed Series 
1999A Lease Revenue Bonds are sold in a principal 
amount of approximately $9,595,000 at an estimated 
annual interest rate of 4.6 percent (based on current 
financial market interest rates), and if they are based on 
the expected repayment period of six years, the City's 
total principal and interest cost would be approximately 
$10,923,000 over the life of the Series 1999A Lease 
Revenue Bonds. Based on these estimates, as previously 
noted, the City's costs over the life of the Series 1999A 
Lease Revenue Bonds would be $9,595,000 in principal 
and $1,328,000 in interest costs, for a total cost of 
$10,923,000 over six years. 

3. The proposed resolution would provide for a 
Continuing Disclosure Agreement. According to Ms. 
Hollenbeck, Federal law requires all cities and counties 
which issue tax-exempt debt to file an Annual Report 
with a national repository for the benefit of the investors. 
The Annual Report would contain the following: (1) the 
financial statements of the San Francisco Financing 
Corporation and the City; (2) the status of the project; (3) 
a summan' of budgeted General Fund revenues and 
appropriations; (4) a summary of assessed valuation of 
taxable property; and (5) a summary of outstanding and 
authorized but unissued tax supported debt. 

4. The use of lease financing is equivalent to borrowing 
funds, with resultant interest costs, to purchase 
equipment. Since such financing requires fixed, 
mandatory lease payments by City departments over 
several years, the use of lease-purchases "locks in" 
departmental expenditures for future years resulting in a 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

47 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

September 29, 1999 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



reduction in the amount of discretionary monies in the 
City's budget in future years. However, the Mayor's 
Office recommends the use of lease-financing with 
Proposition C bonds for the City's major equipment 
purchases in order to spread the equipment costs over 
several years, corresponding to the City's beneficial use of 
the equipment. 

5. Under the proposed resolution, the Controller is 
required to certify, prior to the sale of the proposed Series 
1999A Lease Revenue Bonds, that the interest rates are 
lower to the City through the San Francisco Finance 
Corporation than through other financing instruments. 
Ms. Peg Stevenson of the Controller's Office advises that 
the Controller reviewed the estimated interest rates for 
comparable equipment lease-financing that would be 
charged by various companies such as Ford Motor Credit, 
which would charge 5.25 percent annually for a 
comparable six year term of borrowing, and IBM, which 
would charge 5.39 percent annually for a six year term of 
borrowing. Based on that review, the Controller has 
certified in relation to the proposed Series 1999A Lease 
Revenue Bonds that if those bonds are sold on October 20, 
1999, the estimated 4.6 percent annual interest rate that 
would be charged by the San Francisco Finance 
Corporation for a six year term of borrowing for the 
subject equipment to be leased would be lower than the 
interest rates that the surveyed companies would charge. 

6. Based on the data reviewed, and in accordance with 
the Charter, as noted in Comment No. 5 above, the 
Controller has certified that the estimated interest rate of 
4.6 percent to be paid by the City would be lower through 
the San Francisco Financing Corporation than through 
other financing instruments. 



Recommendation: Approve the proposed resolution. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

48 



Attachment 



City and County of San Francisco Finance Corporation 
Series 1999A Equipment List 







#of 


Per Unit 




Department 


Equipment 


Units 


Cost 


Total Cost 


Administrative Services 


Cargo Van 




23.000 


23,000 


Administrative Services 


Passenger lift van 




25.000 


35.000 


Adult Probation 


Sedan-compact (CNG) 




22.000 


44.000 


Animal Care 


1 Ton outfitted van 




35,000 


35.000 


City Attorney 


Computer LAN Equipment 




273.901 


273.901 


San Francisco General Hospital 


Fluoroscan imaging system 




69.105 


69.1C5 


San Francisco General Hospital 


BTE Pnmus work Simulator 




53.162 


53.152 


San Francisco General Hospital 


TEE Probe 




48.575 


48.875 


San Francisco General Hospital 


Automatic Coverslipper and Fume Controller 




23.092 


33.092 


San Francisco General Hospital 


Adult Ventilator 




30.380 


30.380 


San Francisco General Hospital 


Humphrey Visual Field Anaiyzer II 




29.591 


29.591 


San Francisco General Hospital 


Osteooower Modular Handpiece 




21.728 


21.728 


Medical Examiner 


1 Ton w/ Eft van 




37.000 


37.000 


Medical Examiner 


Gas Generator 




45,000 


45,000 


Muni 


1 Ton w/ lift van 


2 


27,000 


54,000 


Muni 


Forklifts 


2 


27,000 


54,000 


Muni 


2-1/2 Ton scissor truck w-' hyrailer for over power line repair ' 


2 


120,000 


240.000 


Muni 


Heavy duty currency collection van 


3 


30.000 


90.000 


Muni 


LRV jack & rerailer 


1 


75.000 


75.000 


Muni 


Cargo Van - outfitted 


2 


25.000 


50.000 


Muni 


LRV reoair truck 25K GVWR 300hp diesel 


1 


110.000 


110.000 


Muni 


Overhead Line Maintenance Truck 


1 


240.000 


240.000 


Fire 


Van 


2 


24,500 


49,000 


Fire 


Ambulances 


3 


136,200 


408.600 


Fire 


Triple combination pumpers 


3 


255.978 


767.934 


Fire 


Mini pumpers 


1 


76.000 


76.000 


Fire 


Aerial ladder truck 


1 


458,315 


458,315 


Fire 


Mid-size sedan 


10 


21,000 


210,000 


Public Health 


Cisco catalyst 8500 & 5000 campus switch routers 


1 


140.000 


140.000 


Juvenile Probation 


Compact sedan (CNG) 


6 


22,000 


132.000 


Juvenile Probation 


Passenger van 


3 


26.500 


79.500 


Juvenile Probation 


Car w/ security cage 


1 


25.500 


25.500 


Public Defender 


Minivan 


1 


26,500 


26.500 


Police 


Sedans - marked 


40 


29,694 


1.187.760 


Police 


Sedans - unmarked 


50 


24.250 


1,212.500 


Parking & Traffic 


Three wheelers 


25 


17,500 


437,500 


Parking & Traffic 


1 Ton utility truck (signage repair) 


1 


45.000 


45,000 


Parking & Traffic 


1/2 Ton utility truck (painting) 


1 


22.000 


22.000 


Parking & Traffic 


1/2 Ton utility truck (signal repair) 


1 


35.000 


35.000 


Parking & Traffic 


1 1/2 Ton utility truck (meter repair) 


1 


23.000 


23,000 


Parking & Traffic 


Vans - outfitted 


5 


26,400 


132.000 


Parking & Traffic 


Midsize sedan (CNG) 


1 


24.000 


24.000 


Recreation & Park 


Garbage truck 


1 


140.000 


140,000 


Recreation & Park 


Rubber tire backhoe 


1 


78.000 


78.000 


Recreation & Park 


Ford F150 


1 


25.000 


25.000 


Recreation & Park 


3/4 Ton pick-up Truck 


1 


53,000 


53.000 


Recreation & Park 


3/4 Ton pick-up Truck 


1 


29.500 


29.500 


Recreation & Park 


3/4 Ton pick-up Truck 


1 


29.000 


29.000 


Recreation & Park 


3/4 Ton 4x4 pick-up truck 


1 


27.500 


27.500 


Recreation & Park 


1 Ton ournp truck 


1 


20.000 


20.000 


Recreation & Park 


Dump truck 


2 


60.000 


120.000 


Recreation & Park 


2 3/4 pick-up truck 


1 


37.500 


37.500 


Telecommunications 


Compact car (CNG) 


2 


22.000 


44,000 


Telecommunications 


Wiring & telecom trucks 


3 


30.000 


C0.000 


Telecommunications 


Wiring & telecom trucks 


1 


38.500 


38.500 


Telecommunications 


Wiring & telecom trucks 


1 


35.000 


25.000 


Telecommunications 


Grumen caoie soiicino van 


1 


55.000 


55.000 


8.005.943 



49 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

September 29, 1999 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



Item 7 - File 99-1580 

Department: 

Item: 



Services to be 
Performed: 



Description: 



Airport 

Resolution approving the Controller's certification that 
security guard services for San Francisco International 
Airport can be practically performed by a private 
contractor at a lower cost than if the work were performed 
by City and County employees. 

Airport security guard services which will provide (a) 
around-the-clock security guard services at seven Airport 
Operations Area access doors between the North, South, 
and International Terminals and the adjacent airfields, 
and (b) security guard services to supplement the San 
Francisco Police Department security forces at the new 
International Terminal, beginning in December of 1999. 

In March of 1999, the Airport reviewed its security 
procedures at the Airport Operations Area (AOA) access 
doors located between the North, South, and 
International Terminals, and the adjacent airfields, and 
discovered that unauthorized persons were able to enter 
the Airport through doors located between the existing 
three Airport terminals and the adjacent airfields. These 
doors are installed with electronic palm and card readers 
that allow authorized individuals, who have palm prints 
on file and have an identification card, to enter the 
Airport terminals through these doors. However, 
unauthorized individuals have been able to gain entrance 
through these doors by following closely behind 
individuals using the palm and card readers. To improve 
security at the AOA access doors, the Airport 
implemented security guard services at seven AOA access 
doors in the existing three terminals in April of 1999. The 
San Francisco Foreign Flag Carriers (SFFFC), which is a 
limited liability corporation of seventeen foreign-based 
airlines, has an existing contract with International Total 
Services (ITS) to provide security services for the 
seventeen SFFFC member airlines at the passenger 
loading entryways to the airfields in the International 
Terminal. In April of 1999 the Airport Commission 
approved a resolution in which SFFFC agreed to provide 
temporary security guard services for a period not to 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



50 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

September 29, 1999 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



exceed six months, through its existing contract with ITS, 
at the seven AOA doors in the three existing terminals. 
In the agreement approved by the Airport Commission, 
the Airport provided rent credits to the SFFFC member 
airlines in an amount not to exceed $68,400 per month 
(equal to 4560 hours of security services per month at $15 
per hour) for a total amount not to exceed $410,400 (equal 
to $68,400 per month for six months) to reimburse SFFFC 
for the cost of the additional Airport-requested security 
guard services provided by ITS. 

The Airport plans to provide longer-term security guard 
services at the seven AOA doors in the three existing 
terminals after the six-month agreement with the SFFFC 
expires. In addition, the Airport plana to provide security 
guard services in the new International Terminal to 
supplement the security work of the San Francisco Police 
Department (SFPD) personnel who will be assigned to the 
now International Terminal when it opens, beginning in 
December of 1999. 

Approval of the proposed resolution would permit the 
Aii-port to contract with a private firm to provide security 
guard services (a) at the seven AOA doors located between 
the existing three terminals and the airfields, and (b) to 
supplement the security work of the SFPD personnel 
assigned to the new International Terminal, beginning in 
December of 1999. 

Charter Section 10.104 provides that the City may 
contract with private firms for services which can be 
practically performed by a private contractor for a lower 
cost than similar work performed by City and County 
employees. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

51 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

September 29, 1999 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



The Controller has determined that contracting for the 
Airport security guard services for FY 1999-2000 would 
result in estimated savings as follows: 



Citv-Operated Service Costs 



Lowest 


Highest 


Salary 


Salarv 


Step 


Step 



Salaries $ 982,923 $1,159,991 

Fringe benefits 293.078 320.913 

Total $1,276,001 $1,480,904 

Contractual Service Cost 759.200 759.200 

Estimated Savings $ 516,801 $ 721,704 



Comments: 1. According to Ms. Lily Lee of the Airport, the subject 

security guard services have not previously been 
contracted out and therefore, have not received prior 
Controller certification. Ms. Lee reports that the 
proposed contract will provide for (a) continuous security 
guard services at the seven AOA doors located between 
the existing three terminals and the airfields, and (b) 
security guard services to supplement the SFPD 
personnel who will provide security at the new 
International Terminal when it opens, beginning in 
December of 1999. According to Ms. Lee, the proposed 
contract is a one-time contract and will terminate when 
the Airport no longer requires the use of security guards 
in these areas, as follows: 

(a) The Airport plans to construct turnstiles at the seven 
doors located between the existing terminals and the 
airfield by April of 2000, to augment the security 
provided by the palm and card readers, and when 
construction of the turnstiles is completed, the Airport 
plans to terminate the use of security guards at these 
doors. According to Ms. Lee, the contract to be 
negotiated between the private contractor and the 
Airport will have a clause that allows the Airport to 
terminate these services. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

52 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

September 29, 1999 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



(b) The Airport plans to construct facility modifications in 
the new International Terminal, such as turnstiles at 
the doors located between the International Terminal 
and the airfield to augment the security provided by 
palm and card readers at these doors, and when such 
modifications are completed, the Airport plans to 
terminate the use of security guards to supplement the 
SFPD security in the International Terminal. Ms. Lee 
reports that the Airport expects to terminate the 
contract with the private contractor prior to June 30, 
2001. 

2. The Contractual Services cost used for the purpose of 
this analysis is based on the average of the bids presented 
by the private contractors who submitted bids under the 
bidding process, to provide security services for a twelve- 
month period from November 1, 1999 through October 30, 
2000. 

3. According to Ms. Jeannie Louie-Chin of Purchasing, the 
competitive bid results are under review by the 
Purchaser, and therefore, the Airport security guard 
services contract has not yet been awarded. 

4. The Controller's supplemental questionnaire with the 
Airport's responses is shown in the Attachment to this 
report. 



Recommendation: Approve the proposed resolution. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

53 



Charter 10.104.15 (Proposition J) Questionnaire 

DEPARTMENT: SFIA Operations - Security Unit 

CONTRACT SERVICES: Security Guard Services 

CONTRACT PERIOD: July 1, 1999 through June 30, 2002 

(1) Who performed the activity/service prior to contracting out? 

Prior to contracting for unarmed security guard services, access to the Air Operations .Area was monitored 
by card and palm readers linked to the Airport Access Control System (ACS). The Airport is contracting 
for unarmed security guard services to augment card and palm readers because recent Federal Aviation 
Adininistration assessments have found that U.S. airports need to improve their employee compliance with 
access control procedures. This is a temporary, interim measure until physical facility modifications are 
made. 

(2) How many City employees were laid off as a result of contracting out? 

None because this job was performed by card reader equipment linked to the ACS. 

(3) Explain the disposition of employees if they were not laid off. 

This is not applicable. 

(4) What percentage of City employees' time is spent on services to be contracted out? 

This is not applicable; this job was performed by card reader equipment linked to the ACS. 

(5) How long have the services been contracted out? Is this likely to be a one-time or an on-going request 
for contracting out? 

This will be the first time that these services will be contracted out. This is a one-time request for 
contracting out for a period not to exceed three vears by which time we expect to have physical facility 
modifications. 

(6) What was the first fiscal year for a Proposition J certification? Has it been certified for each 
subsequent year? 

This will be the first fiscal year for a Proposition J certification. 

(7) How will the services meet the goals of your MBE/WBE Action Plan? 

These services will meet the goals of the Airport's MBE/WBE Action Plan by encouraging the prime 
vendor to subcontract with a certified MBE/WBE firm. 

(8) Does the proposed contract require that the contractor provide health insurance for its employees? 
Even if not required, are health benefits provided? 

No, the proposed contract doesn't require that the contractor provide health insurance for its employees. 
Upon selection of contractor. Airport staff will inquire whether the contractor provides health benefits for 
its employees. 

(9) Does the proposed contractor provide benefits to employees with spouses? If so. are the same 
benefits provided to employees with domestic partners? If not how does the proposed contractor 
comply with the Domestic Partners ordinance? 

SFIA Operations will furnish this information upon contractor selection. 



Department Representative: Ron Dnscoll 

Telephone Number: 650-794-3950 



54 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

September 29, 1999 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

Item 8 - File 99-1700 



Department: 
Item: 



Location: 
Purpose of Lease: 

Lessor: 

Lessee: 

No. of Sq. Ft. and 
Cost Per Month: 

Term of Lease: 



Annual Rent Payable 
by Benjamin Books to 
Airport: 



Airport 

Resolution authorizing a new International Terminal 
Bookstore and Cafe lease between Benjamin Books, Inc. 
and the City and County of San Francisco, acting by and 
through its Airport Commission 

New International Terminal of the Airport 

This new lease would provide concession space in the new 
International Terminal for (a) a bookstore to sell books, 
magazines, newspapers, and related items, and (b) a cafe 
to sell espresso drinks, coffee, tea, and pastries. 

City and Count}' of San Francisco, acting by and through 
its Airport Commission 

Benjamin Books, Inc. 



1,795 square feet, located near the pre-security Boarding 
Area G in the new International Terminal 

The proposed concession lease would commence on June 
26, 2000. The lease would be for a period of five years, 
terminating in 2005. 



Beginning from the first year of the lease, and through 
the duration of the five-year lease period, the annual rent 
payable by Benjamin Books to the Airport is the greater 
of either the Minimum Annual Guarantee of $265,854. 
subject to the Consumer Price Index (CPI) annual 
adjustment, or a percentage of gross receipts, as follows: 



Gross Receipts 



Percentage of Annual Gross 
Bookstore/Cafe Receipts 



Up to and including $1,000,000 
Over $1,000,000 



10% 
12% 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



55 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

September 29, 1999 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



Utilities Provided 




by Lessor: 


The Lessee 


Term of Lease: 


Five years 


Right of Renewal: 


None 


Tenant 




Improvements: 


According 



Description: 



to Ms. Gigi Ricasa of the Airport, Benjamin 
Books would be required to invest a minimum of $269,250, 
based on $150 per square foot, to renovate the subject 
leased space. Ms. Ricasa states that the tenant 
improvements would begin in early 2000. 

On June 1, 1999, the Airport Commission authorized the 
Airport to accept qualifications, proposals, and bids for the 
new International Terminal Bookstore/Cafe lease 
(Resolution No. 99-0178). Subsequently, on August 17, 
1999, the Airport Commission adopted a resolution 
(Resolution No. 99-0273) awarding the lease to Benjamin 
Books, Inc. 

Under the proposed lease, Benjamin Books would operate a 
bookstore at the stated location to sell paperback and 
hardcover books in fiction and non-fiction, a complete 
supply of local daily newspapers, major best-selling 
national periodicals and magazines, books on tape, and 
book accessories. 



Comments: 



In addition. Benjamin Books would sublease 30 percent of 
the total square footage of the subject lease space, subject 
to Airport Commission approval, for a cafe, which would 
sell espresso drinks, coffee, tea, and pastries. 

1. According to Ms. Ricasa, the cafe would be operated by 
Ms. Loretta Whittle as a subtenant, as approved by the 
Airport Commission on August 17, 1999 (Resolution No. 99- 
0273). The terms of the lease provide that Benjamin 
Books, as the primary tenant, charge the subtenant a 
maximum rent of 10% of the cafe's gross revenues up to and 
including $1,000,000, and a maximum rent of 12% of the 
cafe's gross revenues above $1,000,000. 

2. The Minimum Annual Guarantee of $265,854, is $65,854 
more than the Airport's Minimum Required Annual 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



56 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

September 29, 1999 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

Guarantee of $200,000, which was the required Minimum 
Annual Guarantee bid amount contained in the Airport's 
Invitation to Bid. Attachment I, provided by the Airport, 
contains the basis for the calculation of the Minimum 
Required Annual Guarantee bid. Ms. Ricasa states that 
the basis of the $200,000 Minimum Required Annual 
Guarantee Bid, as set by the Airport, was determined by 
calculating 15 percent of the anticipated annual gross 
revenues of $800 per square foot for the leased amount of 
1,795 square feet ($215,400). However, Ms. Ricasa states 
that the amount of $215,400 was reduced to $200,000, 
based on the minimum required annual guarantee which 
was acceptable to the prospective tenants who attended the 
pre-bid conference to discuss the major terms of the lease. 

3. Attachment II, provided by the Airport, contains a list of 
the two firms which submitted bids and the amounts of 
their Minimum Annual Guarantee bids. 

Recommendation: Approve the proposed resolution. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

57 



SEP-23-1999 15=53 FROM SFlfi-BUS DEU 8. MGMT 



TO 



914152520461 



P. 01 



Airport 

COVUTVXSIOB 

City and County 
of San Francisco 

Willie L Brown, Jr. 
Mayor 

Henry E. Berman 
President 

Un-y Mazzola 
Vice President 

Michael S. Struntky 

Linda S Creyton 

Caryl Ito 

JOHN L MARTIN 
Airport Director 




Attachment I 
Page! of 2 



San Francisco International Airport 

OATFWAT TO THC PAClHC 



VIA FACSIMILE (415) 252-0461 
MEMORANDUM 



September 24, 1999 



TO: Ms. Severin Campbell 

Board of Supervisor's Office 

FROM: Gigi Ricasa Q& 

Airport Commission 

Concession Development and Management 

SUBJECT: New International Terminal Bookstore /Cafe Lease 

In response to your request to clarify the minimum bid amount set for the 
New International Terminal Bookstore /Cafe Lease ('Lease"), staff worked 
closely with consultants in developing the specifications for the concession 
program in the New International Terminal, including the minimum bid 
amounts. The minimum bid amounts represent the highest and 
responsive bidder's annual rent for the first year. It was determined that 
for the first year of each lease, the retail facilities will generate an average 
of $800 per square foot. The minimum bid amounts for each Lease were 
originally set at fifteen percent (15%) of the first year's anticipated gross 
revenues. 

The original minimum bid amount for this Lease was $2 15,000. The 
overwhelming request from the bookstore industry was to lower the 
minimum. Their general consensus among the bookstore vendor industry 
was that the minimum bid was set too high, citing that the profit margins 
on books are low. Airport staff considered the industry's suggestion, 
determined its merit and lowered the minimum bid to $200,000. 

The competitive process used for this Lease was the qualifications/ 
proposals and bid process, otherwise known as the "two-envelope" 
process. In the first-envelope level, interested parties must meet the 
minimum qualifications and their proposals must be deemed acceptable 



SAN FRANCISnn INTFRNATiONAl aiRPORT . P.O. BOX 8097 ■ SAN ffiANCISCO CAUF0RN 1A 9113 • TELEPHONE (SO) TOi-WW . FAX (6») 7J4-SB5 



58 



SEP-23-1999 15:53 FROM SFIA-BUS DEU & NGMT TO 914152520461 P. 02 

Attachment I 

Memo to Ms. Campbell Page 2 of 2 

September 24, 1999 
Page 2 

in order to advance to the second-envelope stage, which is the opening of 
all qualified bids. 

There were two participants for this specific lease: Benjamin Books and 
Books, Inc. Both participants' bids advanced to the second-envelope 
stage, with Benjamin Books submitting the higher bid amount. (See 
Commission memo dated August 12, 1999 and resolution dated August 
17, 1999.) 

The Request for Qualifications /Proposal and Bid Documents states that 
interested parties must sublease thirty percent (30%) of the leased space 
to a Disadvantaged Business Enterprise ("DBE") for the sole purpose of 
operating a cafe. Benjamin Books, Inc. selected, and the Airport has 
approved, Loretta Whittle as its DBE subtenant. 

Attached are copies of the resolutions and the Commission package, 
including signed and approved resolutions, relating to the bid process for 
this Lease. 

Please let me know if I can be of further assistance. 
Attachments 



59 



^ rrrun bhlH-bUb DEV & MGMT 



TO 



914152528461 P. 05 



Airport 
Cooxnruioa 

City and Couniy 
0! San Francisco 

Willie I Brown. Jr 
Mayor 

Hinry E Barman 
Prtud*M 

Larry Maaola 
Vict PresirJam 

Michael S. Suunjky 

Unda S Crayton 

Caryl 110 

JOHN L MARTIN 
Airoon Oiractor 




Attachment I I 
Page 1 of 2 



San Francisco International Airport 



&ATTWAY TO TMf PACIFIC 

MEMO RA WD UM 

August 12, 1999 



TO: AIRPORT COMMISSION 

Hon. Henry E. 3erman, President 
Hon. Larry Mazzola, Vice President 
Hon. Michael Strunsky 
Hon. Linda S. Crayton 
Hon. Caryl Ito 

FROM: Airport Director 

SUBJECT: Award of the New International Terminal Bookstore /Cafe Lease 

DIRECTOR'S RECOMMENDATION: ADOPT ACCOMPANYLNG RESOLUTION 
AWARDING THE NEW INTERNATIONAL TERMINAL BOOKSTORE /CAFE LEASE TO 
BENJAMIN BOOKS. INC., APPROVING LORETTA WHITTLE AS ITS SUBTENANT, 
AND DIRECTING THE COMMISSION SECRETARY TO SEEK APPROVAL FROM THE 
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS. 



I am recommending adoption of the accompanying resolution awarding the New 
International Terminal Bookstore /Cafe Lease to Benjamin Books, Inc., a Minority 
Business Enterprise (MBE), approving Loretta Whittle, a Disadvantaged Business 
Enterprise (DBE) as its subtenant, and directing the Cornmission Secretary to seek 
approval from the Board of Supervisors. 

Background 

By Resolution No. 99-0178, adopted June 1, 1999, the Commission authorized staff 
to accept qualifications, proposals and bids for the New International Terminal 
Bookstore/ Cafe Lease. The Lease comprises approximately 1 ,795 square feet of 
retail space. Tenant is required to sublease the cafe, which is thirty' percent of the 
total square footage of the Premise, to a DBE. The minimum bid amount was 
$200,000 with a term of five years. On June 30, 1999, staff received submittals 
from: 



Benjamin Books, Inc. (MBE) 
Books Inc. 



THIS PRINT COVERS CALENDAR ITEM NO. 



SAN FWNTOlCO INTUlNATlONAl AIRPORT • T.O. BUXSOT7- SAN CSANDSC0 CAilFCrianiA <U1JI .TE1£PH0NE (650) 79*-S000 . FAX ISS0) 7»4-50CB 



60 



'""' lu 914152520461 P.0£ 

Attachment H 

Members, Airport Commission ^ a § e ^- of 2 

August 12, 1999 
Page 2 

A panel consisting of three members reviewed the submittals and deemed that both 
companies (and their subtenants) met the minimum qualifications and their 
proposals were acceptable. 

On July 9, 1999, the bids from both companies were opened and the result is: 

Company Bid Amount 

Benjamin Books, Inc $265,854 

Books Inc. $205,500 

Benjamin Books, Inc. tendered the highest bid with the amount of $265,854. 

Benjamin Books, Inc. has been in operation at airports for 26 years, with 
bookstores in Atlanta, Boston, Dallas/Fort Worth, Denver, LaGuardia, Newark and 
Seattle. Benjamin Books, Inc. has expanded its operation to news and gifts stores 
under The Benjamin Company. Benjamin Books, Inc.'s chosen subtenant to 
operate the cafe is Loretta Whittle. Ms. Whittle currently has two cafes in 
downtown San Francisco, and she is also a sublessee of the current Food and 
Beverage Lease at the Airport. 

Airport staff verified that Benjamin Books, Inc, satisfies the qualification 
requirements of this Lease and the Human Rights Commission has deemed that 
Benjamin Books, Inc. is in compliance with the Equal Benefits Ordinance under 
Chapter 12B of the Administrative Code. Further, the Human Rights Commission 
has approved its Employee Workforce Plan. Ms. Whittle has also been certified by 
the Airport M/WBE Opportunity Outreach Office as a DBE. 

Recommendation 

I recommend adoption of the accompanying resolution awarding the New 
International Terminal Bookstore /Cafe Lease to Benjamin Books, Inc., approving 
Loretta Whittle as its subtenant, and directing the Commission Secretary to seek 
approval from the Board of Supervisors. 



mm 



K 

John! L. Martin 
Airport Director 

Prepared by: Bob Rhoades 



61 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 
September 29, 1999 Finance Committee Meeting 



Item 9 -File 99-1721 

Department: 

Item: 



Amount: 
Source of Funds: 

Description: 



Department of Public Health (DPH) 

Hearing to request release of reserves in the amount of 
$300,000 to be used to (a) provide enhanced mental health 
services to clients in acute diversion units and residential 
treatment facilities, and (b) increase the number of 
residential care beds for mentally ill clients transitioning 
from hospital and institutional settings into the 
community 

$300,000 

General Fund monies added and reserved by the Board of 
Supervisors in the Fiscal Year 1999-2000 Department of 
Public Health budget. 

This request would release the previously reserved 
$300,000 in General Fund monies added to the FY 1999- 
2000 DPH budget by the Board of Supervisors for mental 
health programs which provide community-based 
treatment services to acutely ill mental health clients who 
would otherwise be hospitalized. 

The $300,000 was appropriated for the purpose of opening 
a community-based Acute Diversion Unit (ADU) 1 . 
However, because the estimated costs of operating an 
ADU are approximately $975,000 annually, or $675,000 
greater than the $300,000 allocated, the DPH is now 
requesting to use the subject reserved funds to: 

(a) pay increased reimbursement rates to non-profit 
contractors which operate residential treatment and acute 
diversion programs to compensate the programs for the 
higher cost of treatment for acutely ill mental health 
clients, and 

(b) pay for additional residential care beds for mentally ill 
clients transitioning from hospital and institutional 
settings. 



1 An ADU is a treatment facility that provides intensive treatment services to acutely ill mental 
health clients who would otherwise be hospitalized. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



62 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 
September 29, 1999 Finance Committee Meeting 



Budget: 



By using such funds to pay increased reimbursement 
rates to programs to provide treatment for acutely ill 
mental health clients and to pay for additional residential 
care beds, acutely ill mental health patients, who would 
otherwise be hospitalized or institutionalized, would 
receive treatment in community-based programs in 
facilities operated by non-profit contractors. 

A summary budget for the period of November 1, 1999 
through June 30, 2000, for the requested $300,000 is as 
follows: 



Comments: 



Increased reimbursement rates to 
residential treatment and acute 
diversion program providers 

Costs of 26 additional residential 
care beds at various residential 
home care facilities 
Total 



$200,000 



100.000 
$300,000 



As shown in the Attachment, provided by DPH to support 
this summary budget, the proposed reimbursement rates 
to providers would increase between $1.19 to S12.71 per 
unit of service depending on the type of service provided, 
resulting in a total cost of $200,000. Additionally, the 
increase of approximately 26 residential care beds would 
increase the number of beds from the current number of 
467 beds to 493 beds, and would result in a total cost of 
$100,000. 

1. Ms. Anne Okubo of the DPH states that the existing 
rates which DPH pays to the non-profit contractors 
operating residential treatment and acute diversion 
programs do not fully cover the costs of treatment for 
acutely ill mental health clients. According to Ms. Okubo, 
the proposed increased reimbursement rates would more 
fully cover the costs of providing services to acutely ill 
clients. 



3. The residential care beds differ from the treatment 
programs noted above, in that they provide room, board 
and care to mental health clients who are discharged from 
hospitals and institutions. Currently. DPH funds 467 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

63 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 
September 29, 1999 Finance Committee Meeting 

residential home care beds for mental health and geriatric 
clients at a cost of $15.53 per bed per day or $5,668 
($15.53 times 365 days) per bed per year, totaling 
$2,646,956 (467 beds times $5,668) for 365 days. The 
requested $100,000 would be used to pay for 
approximately 6,439 additional residential care bed days. 
This would translate to approximately 26 additional beds 
from November 1, 1999, through June 30, 2000 (6,439 bed 
days divided by 241 days between November 1, 1999 
through June 30, 2000). The 26 additional residential care 
beds would be funded at the same rate of $15.53 per bed 
per day, for a total of $97,311 (26 beds @ $15.53 per day 
times 241 days), rounded up to $100,000. 

3. Ms. Okubo states that the request for $200,000 would 
be allocated to three non-profit agencies: Baker Places, 
Conard House, and Progress Foundation, selected by DPH 
through a Request for Proposal (RFP) process. These 
three non-profits operate residential treatment programs 
and Progress Foundation also operates four Acute 
Diversion Units. The request for $100,000 would be 
allocated to various residential home care facilities to 
fund an additional 26 beds. 

Recommendation: Approve the proposed release of reserved funds. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

64 



Department of Public Health 

Funds Held on Reserve 

Acute Diversion for Mental Health 



Attachment 



1. Residential Treatment Service 


Enh 


ancements 
















Base 


Enhanced 






Units of 










Rale 


Rale 


Increase 


Service 




Amount 


Baker Places 


















Robertson Place 


S 


105.11 


S 109.16 


S 


4.05 


3.811 


S 


15,435 


Robertson Med 




193.25 


195.55 




2.30 


163 




375 


Robertson Day Treatment 




87.15 


90 83 




3.68 


2,700 




9,936 


Grove St. Crisis 




210.45 


219.54 




9.09 


3.263 




29,661 


Grove St. Med 




201.18 


202.37 




1.19 


288 




343 


Subtotal 
















55.749 


Conard House 


















Jackson St. Residential 


S 


78.18 


$ 80.72 


S 


2.54 


7,884 


S 


20,025 


CCOOP/Hotel - Outpt Svcs 




94.26 


98.09 




3.83 


1.741 




6,668 


Subtotal 
















26.693 


Progress House 


















La Posada 


S 


229 72 


$ 231.58 


S 


1.86 


3.255 


S 


6,054 


Shrader 




241.19 


253.90 




12.71 


2,344 




29.792 


Cortland 




252.95 


263.25 




10.30 


2,544 




26,203 


La Amistad 




124.39 


131.06 




6.67 


4.156 




27,721 


Progress House 




141.22 


149.71 




8.49 


3,273 




27,788 


Subtotal 
















117,558 


Total Residential Treatment Enl 


lancements 








$ 


200,000 



II 


Expansion 


of Residential Care Beds 


Daily 
Rale 


Units of 
Service 




Amount 








S 15.53 


6.439 


S 


100.000 



Total 



300.000 



l:\99-00bud\bdofsups\cmhs.xls 9/24/99 



65 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

September 29, 1999 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



Item 10 - File 99-1347 

Department: 

Item: 



Amount: 
Source of Funds: 



Description: 



Department of Human Services (DHS) 

Hearing to consider release of reserved funds in tbe 
amount of $1,300,000 to implement the proposed 100 bed 
Golden Gate Family Residence facility at 260 Golden Gate 
Avenue to provide temporary shelter to homeless families 
and homeless pregnant women. 

$1,300,000 

General Fund monies reserved in the Fiscal Year 1999- 
2000 Department of Human Services budget. During the 
FY 1999-2000 budget hearings, the Finance and Labor 
Committee recommended and the full Board of 
Supervisors approved that $1,300,000 for a new family 
residence facility at 260 Golden Gate Avenue, included in 
the Mayor's recommended budget, be placed on reserve 
pending (a) a public hearing conducted by the Human 
Services Commission, in accordance with Proposition I, 
which requires public input when a new social service 
facility is proposed, and (b) the submission of additional 
budget details to the Finance and Labor Committee. 

The Department of Human Services (DHS) proposes to 
renovate the City-owned property at 260 Golden Gate 
Avenue, formerly occupied by the Fire Department for its 
administrative headquarters office space, to be used as a 
temporary family residence facility, containing 100 beds, 
for homeless families and homeless pregnant women. 
DHS proposes to enter into a contract with the Hamilton 
Family Center, a non-profit organization which currently 
operates the Hamilton Family Center shelter on Waller 
Street. The Hamilton Family Center would be awarded a 
contract, in the amount of $1,648,863, on a sole-source 
basis, for: 

(a) oversight of the renovation of 260 Golden Gate Avenue 
for use as a temporary family residence facility, at an 
estimated cost of $1,263,350, and 

(b) for facility operations costs, which include staff 
salaries, and related operating expenses, including 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

September 29, 1999 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

expenditures for equipment and supplies, for the period 
from April 1, 2000 through June 30, 2000, at an estimated 
cost of $385,513. The Hamilton Family Center would 
operate the proposed Golden Gate Family Residence 
facility to provide 100 beds to house approximately 35 
families at a time. The residents of the family residence 
would stay at the facility for a period up to 90 days, with a 
possible extension for an additional 90 days, thereby 
serving approximately 120 homeless families annually. 

Budget: A summary budget for the family residence facility at 260 

Golden Gate Avenue is as follows: 

Renovation costs $1,263,350 

Family residence operation 385.513 

Subtotal $1,648,863 

As shown above, the total proposed budget for the 
renovation and initial family residence costs in the 
amount of $1,648,863 exceeds the $1,300,000 in reserved 
funds by the amount of $348,863 (see Comment 1). 

Attachment I to this report, provided by DHS, contains 
supporting budget details. 

Comments: 1. According to Ms. Julie Brenman of DHS, total project 

costs for capital improvements to 260 Golden Gate 
Avenue and start-up and initial operating costs equal 
$1,648,863, or $348,863 more than the $1,300,000 placed 
on reserve in the FY 1999-2000 DHS budget. Ms. 
Brenman reports that the funding sources for the 
additional funds in the amount of $348,863 are as follows: 

General fund monies carried 

forward from FY 1998-99 

DHS budget $200,000 

Estimated contract savings from 

FY 1999-2000 DHS budget 148.863 

Total $348,863 

Ms. Brenman states that funds carried forward from the 
FY 1998-99 DHS budget in the amount of $200,000 were 
earmarked for architectural fees and construction 
management fees but were not expended due to delays in 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

67 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

September 29, 1999 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting ' 



obtaining approval for use of 260 Golden Gate Avenue as 
a family residence. Ms. Brenman also states that DHS 
anticipates $143,863 in savings from contract costs 
budgeted in the FY 1999-2000 DHS budget, due to 
delayed start-up of new contracts. 

2. According to Ms. Brenman, $1,300,000 of General Fund 
monies were reserved in the FY 1999-20000 DHS budget 
for the proposed family residence at 260 Golden Gate 
Avenue, in order that DHS could hold a public hearing 
regarding the proposed family residence facility as a way 
of receiving community input in compliance with 
Proposition I, approved by the voters in 1998. Ms. 
Brenman reports that the public hearing was conducted 
by the Human Services Commission on August 26, 1999. 

3. Ms. Brenman states that on September 23, 1999, the 
Human Services Commission approved a contract to be 
awarded by DHS on a sole-source basis to Hamilton 
Family Center, in the amount of $1,648,863, to (a) oversee 
the renovation of 260 Golden Gate Avenue for use as a 
family residence facility, at an estimated cost of 
$1,263,350, and (b) operate a family residence facility at 
that site, at an estimated cost of $385,513 for the period 
from April 1, 2000 through June 30, 2000 

(a) According to Ms. Brenman, Hamilton Family Center 
previously completed the construction of a new 
Transitional Housing Facility and therefore, possesses the 
appropriate experience and ability to manage the 
renovation project. According to DHS, Hamilton Family 
Center's prior experience, as noted, justified the award of 
$1,648,863 on a sole-source basis. 

Under the contract with DHS, Hamilton Family Center 
would hire subcontractors to perform the renovation work 
at 260 Golden Gate Avenue, at an estimated cost of 
$1,263,350. Invitations to bid on the renovation work 
would be issued by Hamilton Family Center and 
subcontracts would be awarded by the Hamilton Family 
Center to the lowest bidders, in compliance with Human 
Rights Commission requirements. Ms. Brenman states 
that, although a preliminary budget is attached (see 
Attachment II), a detailed budget for the renovation work 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

September 29, 1999 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



is not available because precise specifications for the work 
have not yet been developed nor have bids been 
submitted. 

According to Ms. Michelle Byrd of DHS, a contract for 
construction management services would be awarded by 
Hamilton Family Center to Mercy Charities, a non-profit 
affordable housing developer which partnered with 
Hamilton Family Center in the construction of the 
Transitional Housing Facility, as a subcontractor to 
Hamilton Family Center. Details of the proposed contract 
are not yet available. 

According to Ms. Byrd, Hamilton Family Center would 
award a subcontract for architectural services, to an 
architecture firm to be determined, in the amount of 
approximately 8 to 10 percent of the estimated renovation 
costs of $1,263,350. 

Ms. Brenman states that the preliminary estimated costs 
in the amount of $1,263,350 for the renovation project of 
260 Golden Gate Avenue were developed by Asian 
Neighborhood Design (AND), a non-profit agency that 
provides housing development, architectural and planning 
services, and other resources for low-income community 
development projects, based on a preliminary walk- 
through of the premises. AND currently has a contract 
with the Mayor's Office of Housing to provide 
architectural services, and conducted the walk-through at 
260 Golden Gate Avenue as part of that contract at a cost 
of $6,000. As noted above, precise specifications for the 
renovation work have not yet been developed and a 
detailed budget for the renovation work is not yet 
available. 

Attachment II, provided by DHS, contains the 
preliminary estimated renovation costs in the amount of 
$1,263,350. However, as noted above, a more detailed 
budget is not yet available. 

(b) The family residence operations budget in the amount 
of $385,513 provides for shelter staff salaries and 
operating expenses, purchase of necessary equipment and 
supplies, and costs to Hamilton Family Center for 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

September 29, 1999 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



Executive Director and Human Resource Administrator 
time, as follows: 

Staff salaries and benefits $212,229 

Operating expenses 86,000 

Equipment and supplies 37,000 
Hamilton Family Center costs 

(Executive Director, 

Human Resource Administrator) 50.284 

Total $385,513 

Attachment III contains additional details for the family 
residence operation costs. 

6. According to Ms. Maggie Donahue of DHS, the 
Hamilton Family Center would hire a Program Director 
for the Golden Gate Family Residence in November of 
1999, at a salary of $3,500 per month or $28,000 for the 8 
month period between November 1, 1999 through June 
30, 2000, to oversee development of the program. Staff 
hiring and training would begin April 1, 2000 with a 
planned opening date for the shelter of May 1, 2000. 

Ms. Byrd states that projected full-year costs for FY 2000- 
01 for the operation of the family shelter at 260 Golden 
Gate Avenue would be $1,193,079, with anticipated 
funding to come from the General Fund. 

7. According of Ms. Byrd, DHS originally proposed to 
award a contract to Hamilton Family Center to oversee 
the renovation of 260 Golden Gate Avenue rather than 
use the Department of Public Works (DPW), because, 
based on past experience, costs to DHS of using DPW 
have been significantly higher than the cost of using an 
outside contractor. However, Ms. Byrd did not request 
DPW to submit a proposal for DPW costs for the 
renovation work to be compared with the Hamilton 
Family Center costs. Ms. Byrd states that DHS has 
previously awarded similar contracts to non-profit 
agencies to renovate facilities in which a social service 
program would be operated. According to Ms. Byrd, this 
contract differs from prior DHS contracts with non-profit 
agencies in that the facility is City-owned property. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

September 29, 1999 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



However, legal issues have been raised by the City 
Attorney's Office concerning the proposed use of a non- 
City entity, namely the Hamilton Family Center, to 
oversee renovation of City-owned property. As discussed 
further in Comment 9, according to Ms. Virginia Elizondo 
of the City Attorney's Office, DPVV and DHS have agreed 
to work together to facilitate the construction contracting 
process. 

8. According to Mr. Matthew Hymel, the Mayor's Director 
of Finance, the use of the facility at 260 Golden Gate 
Avenue as a family residence was recommended in the 
Mayor's proposed FY 1999-2000 budget because the 
proposed family residence represents a higher priority 
than other potential uses of the City-owned facility at 260 
Golden Gate Avenue, which was formerly used as office 
space by the Fire Department. Other potential uses could 
be, for example, the consolidation of City office space now 
located in various leased facilities. Ms. Brenman states 
that 35 family residence beds have been lost since 1999 
due to the closure of the Catholic Charities family shelter 
and another 50 family residence beds may be eliminated 
in January of 2000 due to the possible closure of the 
emergency family shelter located on Waller Street. The 
Budget Analyst believes that the proposed use of space is 
a policy matter for the Board of Supervisors. 

9. Subsequent to the Budget Analyst providing DHS with 
a draft version of the Budget Analyst's report, the DHS 
advised the Budget Analyst that the DHS has modified its 
original budget proposal to award Hamilton Family 
Center a contract in the amount of $1,648,863. DHS now 
proposes to contract with Hamilton Family Center in the 
amount of $385,513 for operation of the proposed family 
residence at 260 Golden Gate Avenue but not contract 
with Hamilton Family Center for the renovation work. 
According to Ms. Brenman, the DPVV Bureau of 
Architecture has agreed to work with DHS to develop 
specifications for the proposed renovation on a work-order 
basis, for an estimated cost of $200,000. Therefore, Ms. 
Brenman states that DHS has amended this request for 
the release of reserved funds, to release $236,650, 
including $200,000 for DPW architectural services and 
$36,650 for family residence operation costs and to retain 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

71 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

September 29, 1999 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

$1,063,350 in reserve pending submission of budget 
details for the renovation work ($1,300,000 less $236,650). 
Attachment rV includes memoranda provided by DHS 
and the DPW Bureau of Architecture pertaining to this 
amended request. 

Recommendations: 1. In accordance with Comment No. 9 above, reduce the 

amount of reserved funds to be released by $1,063,350 
from $1,300,000 to $236,650. 

2. Continue to reserve $1,063,350. 

3. Approval of the requested release of reserved funds, as 
amended, is a policy matter for the Board of Supervisors, 
since, as previously noted in Comment No. 8, the City 
could consider alternative uses for the existing office 
space at 260 Golden Gate Avenue, such as the 
consolidation of City office space now located in various 
leased facilities. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Attachment I 



Appendix B. Page 
Document Date 

DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES CONTRACT BUDGET SUMMARY 
BY PROGRAM 


Contractor's Name 
HAMILTON FAMILY CENTER 


Contract Term 
October 1 1 999 to June 30. 2000 


(Check One) New Renewal Modification 

If modification. Effective Date of Mod No of Mod 


Program: 260 Golden Gate Shelter 


Start-up Period 


Shelter Operation 




Total 


Budget Reference Page No (s) 


, 






.\ 


Program Term I 10/1/99 - 3/31/00 • 


4/1/00 -6/30/00 




10/1/99 -6/30/00 


Expenditures 

Salaries & Benefits 




$212,229 




$212,229 


Operating Expense 




186.000 




$86,000 


Capital Expenditure 


if 253. 350 




$1,300,350 


Subtotal 


S1 263.350 


$335,229 




$1,598,579 


Indirect Cost 




S50.234 




$50 234 


Indirect Percentage (%) of direct cost 
(Line 16) 




15% 






Total Expenditures 


$1,263,350 


$385,513 


- 


$1,648,863 


DHS Revenues 

General Fund 


$1,263,350 


$385,513 




$1. 648. 863 


















































TOTAL DHS REVENUES 


$1,253,350 j $385 513 I 


$1,648,863 


Other Revenues 














| 


I I 






Total Revenues 




Full Time Equivalent (FTE) 




Prepared by: Telephone No : 


Date 


DHS-CO Review Signature: 






3/18/99 


DHS #1 





73 



Attachmmt II 



Appendix B, Page 
Document Date: 

Program Name: 

(Same as Line 9 on DHS #1) 

Capital Expenditure Detail 
(Equipment and Remodeling Cost) 

Start-up- ----- Shelter Oper - ; TOTAlH? 


EQUIPMENT TERM 


10/1/99-3/31/00 4/1/00-6/30/00 


■.-r3S=S 


:r >i 0/99-6/00--- 


No. 


ITEM/DESCRIPTION 


































TOTAL EQUIPMENT COST 










REMODELING 




Demolition 


30,000 






30,000 


Architectural services 


200.000 






200.000 


North and South exit stairs 


30,000 






30,000 


New partitions 


20.000 






20,000 


Window replacement 


55,000 






55.000 


Finishes 


120.000 






120.000 


Plumbing 


120.000 






120,000 


Electrical uograde 


120.000 






120,000 


Roof Deck fence 


25.000 






25.000 


Mechanical System upgrades 


85.000 






85,000 


Elevator modernization 


35,000 






35.000 


Fire Alarm system 


45,000 






45.000 


Fire Sorinkler svstem 


80,000 






80.000 


SUB-TOTAL . 

General conditions (9%) 

Overhead 

Construction Contingency 

TOTAL REMODELING COST 


965,000 






965.000 


68.850 




68.850 


114,750 




114.750 


114.750 I 


114.750 


1.263,350 


1.263,350 






TOTAL CAPITAL EXPENDITURE 


1,263,350 1,263,350 


(Equip 
DHS* 


nent and Remodeling Cost) 
1 


3/18/99 



Attachment 
Page 1 of 4 



Program Name: 

(Same as Line 9 on DHS #1) 



Salaries & Benefits Detail 



Start-up period 



Operations 



TERM 



POSITION TITLE 



10/1/99-3/31/00 
FTE SALARIES 



4/1/00 -6/30/00 
FTE SALARIES 



FTE SALARIES 



10/199-6/30/00 
TOTAL : . 



Program Director 



1.00 



S3 1.500 



S31.500 



Administrative Assistant 



1.00 



S6.500 



S6.500 



Receptionist/Security 



3.00 



$13,958 



$13,958 



Case Management Coordinator 



1.00 



$9,000 



$9,000 



Family Case Manager 



3.00 



$17,708 



$17,708 



Clinical Social Worker 



1.00 



$7,292 



$7,292 



Chidren's Program Coordinator 



1.00 



$7,250 



$7,250 



Chidren's Program Assistant 



3.00 



$11,000 



$11,000 



Cook 



1.50 



$8,000 



$8,000 



Maintenance/Janitor 



1.00 



$5,500 



$5,500 



Shelter Coordinator 



1.00 



$7,500 



$7,500 



Lead Counselor 



3.00 



$17,250 



$17,250 



Counselor 



9.00 



$31,500 



$31,500 



TOTALS 



EMPLOYEE FRINGE BENEFITS 



TOTAL SALARIES & BENEFITS 
DHS #2 



29.50 



$173,958 



22% S38.271 



$212,229 



$173,958 



S38.271 



$212,229 



3/18/99 



* The Program Director position is budgeted from October 1, 1999 through June 30, 2000. 



7S 



DHS#3 



Attachment 111 
Page 2 of 4 



Program Name: Golden Gate Family Resicence 
(Same as Line 9 on DHS #1) 

OPERATING BUDGET 



START-UP 
PERIOD 



:' -SHELTER^ 
OPERATIONS 



SO 



S3. 500 



S500 



Expenditure Category jy^My TERM ^10/1/99 - 6/30/00 ^ 4/1/00 -'6/30/00 ^fe : - : ~ 

Scavenger Services S7.000 

Advertising/Hiring S3. 000 

Computer Consultant S2.000 

Kitchen Supplies S5.000 

Program Food 310,000 

Office Supplies 33,000 

Site Supplies 33,000 

Equipment Rental 32.000 

Computer Equipment 

Telephone 

Postage and Delivery 

Utilities 

Janitorial Supplies 

Building Maintenance 

Elevator Maintenance 

Emergency Repairs 

Fees/Permits S1.000 

Local Travel/Miles S500 

Conferences S500 

Staff Training 33,000 

Dues & Subscriptions S500 

Insurance/Liability S5.000 

Equipment Maintenance 3500 

Family Activities S1.000 



S20.000 



34,000 



35.000 



S3. 000 



33.000 



•-■10/1/99 6/30/00 sj? 
37,000 



S3. 000 



S5.000 
310.000 



33,000 



S3. 000 



S2.000 



SO 



S3. 500 



S500 



320,000 



S4.000 



35.000 



S3. 000 



33,000 



31,000 



3500 



S500 



33,000 



S5.000 



S500 



31,000 



SO 



$86,000 



$86,000 



1 
Program Name: 
(Same as Line 9 on DHS #1) 

Capital Expenditure Detail 
(Equipment and Remodeling Cost) 


attachment III 
Page 3 of 4 






Start-up Shelter Oper 




- TOTAL '■?. 


EQUIPMENT TERM 


10/1/99-3/31/00 


4/1/00-6/30/00 | \ 10/99^6700 V?" 


No. 


ITEM/DESCRIPTION 








10 


Computers @ 850 




S8.500 


8500 




Network Equipment including pnnters 




S 1.500 


1500 


1 


Server 




S2.000 


2000 


TeleDhone System 




$12,000 


12.000 


Security Systems 




$10,000 




10.000 


Computer lab set up S3.000 




3.000 


TOTAL 


EQUIPMENT COST 




$37,000 




37000 



77 



Program Name: 

(Same as Line 9 on DHS #1) 

1. Salaries and Benefits 


Indirect Cost Detail 


Attachment III 
Page 4 of 4 






renovation-Start-up Shelter Operations ££ 


TERM 

i-r.i Position Title ; 


10/1/99 -_3/3'l/0(f1 
FTE SALARIES I 


} - 4/1/00-6/30/00" > 
FTE t SALARIES 


FTE SALARIES 


10/1/99-6/30/00 
TOTAL 


Executive Director 






0.45 


S26.000 






526,000 


Human Resource Administrator 






0.40 


$11,000 






511,000 


































































































EMPLOYEE FRINGE BENEFITS 








59,948 






59,948 


TOTAL SALARIES & BENEFITS 








546.948 






546,948 


2. Operating Cost 




Expenditure Cateqorv 






























Audit expenses 








$2,336 






52.336 


vehicle maintenance 








$1,000 






51.000 


































































TOTAL OPERATING COST 






















$3,336 






S3. 336 






TOTAL INDIRECT COST 








$50,284 






$50,284 


(Salaries & Benefits + Operating Cost) 

DHS3 5 3/18/99] 




City and County of San Francisco Department of Human Service 

Attachment IV 
Page 1 of 2 

MEMORANDUM 

September 24, 1999 

TO: Severin Campbell 

Budget Analyst 

FROM: Julie BrenmarvV^ 

Director, Budget and Planning 

RE: Revised 260 Golden Gate Renovation Plans 



As you know, we have awarded a contract to Hamilton Family Center to operate our 
planned family shelter at 260 Golden Gate. We initially intended to have Hamilton 
oversee the renovation of the building prior to operation. It has come to our attention 
that, because 260 Golden Gate is a city-owned building, it is more appropriate for the 
Department of Public Works to oversee the renovation of the building. As such, we plan 
to only award Hamilton the contract for the operations of the shelter and we will work 
order the construction funds to DPW's Bureau of Architecture. 

The contract with Hamilton has not yet been executed; therefore, it will not be 
problematic to change the contract amounts at this time. We will execute the contract in 
the amount of $385,513, which covers the operating costs of the contract. The balance of 
the funds (51,263 ,350) will be used to cover renovation costs at the facility. I have 
spoken to Tara Lamont from DPW's Bureau of Architecture and she has agreed to 
perform these services for DHS. She believes that S200.000 should be adequate for 
preliminary architectural and engineering work. 

At this point, we need the operating funds for the shelter (5385,5 13) and funds so DPW 
can begin architectural drawings (5200,000), totaling 5585,513. We have 5348,863 in 
unreserved funds budgeted for this project, therefore we need 5236,650 of the 51.3 
million reserve lifted at this time. After we have bids en the actual renovation of the 
facility, we will return to the Finance Committee to request that additional needed funds 
be allocated to the project 

Please call me if you have any questions. 



(415) 557-5000 P.O. Box 7323 San Francisco, Calrfcmla 941 



79 



SEP 24 '99 16=04 AT&T FAX 9022FX 
City and County of San Francisco 




Willie Lewis Brown, Jr., Mayot 
Mark A. Primeau, Architect, A1A, Director 



ACtacnmeru: .lv 

Page 2 of 2 

(415)557-4700 

FAX (415) 557-4701 

http://www.afid pw. co m 



Department of Public Works 
Bureau of Architecture 

30 Van Ness Avenue, Suite 4100 
San Francisco. CA 94102-6020 

Tara D. Lamont, A1A, Bureau Manager 




MEMORANDUM 



TO: Mr. Harvey Rose 

FROM: Tara Lamont, Bureau Manager 

Bureau of Architecture 



DATE: 



September 24, 1999 



SUBJECT: Renovation of 260 Golden Gate 



This memorandum is to confirm that the Bureau of Architecture (BOA) will provide project 
management and architectural design services to oversee the renovation of 260 Golden Gate. 
The building is to be converted from office space to a 100 bed family shelter operated by 
Hamilton. 

BOA will work with the Department of Human Services and their contractor Hamilton to 
develop a program and plan for the facility. Design development and construction documents 
will be developed from this information. After bids are received, the construction cost will be 
provided to your office. 



(**■*• Ucu£5>r~ 



Post-lf brand fax transmittal memo 7671 » o« ptgn ► \ 



'Sewm 5 






T<u*L*mov^ 



ftua^ /WjftH ca ftp* 



0«pt 
Fix t 



Ptione * 



gUfcfegfe 



£53>-OU£i 



sn-unof 



Cc: Mr. Harlan L. Kelly Jr., City Engineer 



'improving THE QUAUrf Of life in SAN FMNClSCCr we are dedicated individuals committed to teamwork, 
customer service and continuous Improvement in partnership with tr,$ community. 
Customer service Teamwork Continuous improvement 



80 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

September 29, 1999 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



Item 11 -File 99-1723 
Department: 

Item: 

Amount: 
Source of Funds: 
Description: 



Budget: 



Mayor's Office 

San Francisco Unified School District (SFUSD) 

Ordinance appropriating $657,000 from the General Fund 
Reserve for the San Francisco Unified School District to 
provide arts programs in the public schools. 

$657,000 

General Fund Reserve 

This ordinance would appropriate $657,000 from the 
General Fund Reserve to fund a one-time continuation of 
the Elementary Arts Education Program in the San 
Francisco Unified School District (SFUSD) during FY 
1999-2000. 

Ms. Sally Ann Ryan of the SFUSD advises that the 
Elementary Arts Education Program funds four major 
activities: (a) artists-in-residence in elementary school 
classrooms; (b) elementary school field trips to local 
artists, presenters, museums, concerts, and cultural 
centers; (c) supplies for elementary school arts programs; 
and (d) on-site professional development in the arts for 
elementary school teachers. 

The proposed budget for FY 1999-2000 is summarized as 
follows: 



Expenditure Item 



Elementary Arts Education Program proposed 

budgets for 76 individual elementary schools 
Program evaluation consultant 
Supplies and newsletter 
Contingency 

TOTAL 



Amount 

$591,935 

30,000 
10,000 
25.065 

$657,000 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

September 29, 1999 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

Attachment I, provided by Ms. Ryan, contains the 
proposed budget of $591,935 for the Elementary Arts 
Education Program broken down by each of the 76 
SFUSD elementary schools at a funding level of $20.92 for 
each of the SFUSD's 28,295 students. 

Comments: 1. The memorandum prepared by Mr. Enrique Navas, 

Chief Financial Officer of the SFUSD (Attachment II) 
explains why the SFUSD is unable to fund the 
Elementary Arts Education Program in the amount of 
$657,000 from within its own budget in FY 1999-2000. 
Mr. Navas states that "The District was not able to 
identify on-going or one-time revenue to support this 
valuable program." The subject ordinance would 
appropriate $657,000 from the General Fund Reserve for 
the continuation of the SFUSD's Elementary Arts 
Education Program during FY 1999-2000. Ms. Ryan 
advises that the SFUSD plans to continue funding the 
Elementary Arts Education Program in FY' 2000-2001 
from anticipated new State monies. In FY 1998-99, Mr. 
Navas advises that the SFUSD expended $657,000 on the 
Elementary Arts Education Program, the same amount as 
this subject request of $657,000 in FY 1999-2000. 

2. According to Mr. Enrique Palacios of the SFUSD, the 
$657,000 for arts funding in FY" 1998-99 was funded from 
within the SFUSD's budgeted appropriations. According 
to Ms. Ryan, the figure of $657,000 was the equivalent of 
the salaries and benefits for 16 visual arts teachers at an 
annual salary cost of $41,063. Ms. Ryan advises that the 
Board of Education chose this level of funding because it 
made SFUSD arts funding comparable to SFUSD funding 
for its music program which employs 16 music teachers. 

3. The Budget Analyst notes in Attachment I, provided 
by the SFUSD, that the SFUSD's proposed FY" 1999-2000 
budget of $657,000 is allocated as follows: (a) 
approximately 90.1 percent, or $591,935, is allocated to 
the proposed Elementary Arts Education Program 
budgets for the 76 SFUSD elementary schools; and (b) 
approximately 9.9 percent, or $65,065, is allocated to 
SFUSD operating costs. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

September 29, 1999 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



By contrast, tbe SFUSD budget for tbe Elementary Arts 
Education Program for FY 1998-99, also in the amount of 
$657,000, was allocated as follows: (a) approximately 
97.34 percent, or $639,498, was allocated to the proposed 
Elementary Arts Education Program budgets for the 76 
SFUSD elementary schools; and (b) only 2.66 percent, or 
$17,502, was allocated to operating costs. 

Mr. Palacios advises that the approximately 272 percent 
increase in operating costs between FY 1998-99 and FY 
1999-2000 is due to the allocation of (a) $30,000 for a 
program evaluation consultant, and (b) $25,065 for 
program contingencies in FY 1999-2000. 

4. Mr. Palacios stated that the proposed budget of 
$30,000 for a program evaluation consultant would be 
used to fund a contract with a program evaluator who 
would evaluate the Elementary Arts Education Program 
on a school-by-school basis. This contract would be 
awarded on the basis of professional expertise and 
relevant knowledge, according to Mr. Palacios. 

5. Mr. Palacios states that the proposed contingency 
budget of $25,065 is to provide for (a) additional 
allocations of Elementary Arts Education Program funds 
to elementary schools should such schools experience 
greater than estimated enrollments, and (b) arts program 
changes at individual schools. With regard to the 
SFUSD's actual elementary school enrollment figures, 
Mr. Palacios advises that these will be initially 
determined in October of 1999 and then reviewed again in 
March of 2000. Mr. Palacios advises that some 
contingency funds would be retained until the March of 
2000 enrollment count, so that elementary schools which 
experience an enrollment increase between October of 
1999 and March of 2000 could receive additional 
Elementary Arts Education Program funding. 

6. According to Ms. Ryan, each of the 76 elementary 
schools that would receive Elementary Arts Education 
Program funding in FY 1999-2000 would be required to 
complete a program approval process. As the available 
funding is divided between the elementary schools on a 
per student basis, based on $20.92 per student, Ms. Ryan 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

September 29, 1999 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

advises that the final Elementary Arts Education 
Program funding received by each elementary school 
would depend on that school's actual enrollment figures. 
As noted above, these actual enrollment figures will be 
determined in October of 1999 and March of 2000. Once 
the actual elementary schools' enrollment figures are 
finalized in October of 1999 and the schools have met the 
requirements of the program approval process, such 
schools would then begin expending their Elementary 
Arts Education Program budgets. 

7. Subsequent to the Budget Analyst providing SFUSD 
with a draft version of the Budget Analyst's report, the 
SFUSD advised the Budget Analyst that the SFUSD has 
modified its original budget proposal to eliminate the 
proposed program evaluation consultant in the amount of 
$30,000. Mr. Palacios advises that the $30,000 would 
now be added to the $591,935 in Elementary Arts 
Education Program funding which would be allocated to 
the 76 SFUSD elementary schools, thereby increasing 
that funding to $621,935, or approximately $21.98 per 
student, from the prior allocation of $20.92 per student. 
Attachment III, provided by SFUSD, contains the revised 
budget of $621,935 for the Elementary Arts Education 
Program broken down by each of the 76 elementary 
schools. Mr. Palacios states that the $30,000 in program 
evaluation costs would now be handled by existing 
SFUSD staff instead of SFUSD requesting an additional 
$30,000 from the Board of Supervisors. 

8. This ordinance does not provide for any reporting 
requirements to the Board of Supervisors pertaining to 
the requested expenditure of $657,000. 

Recommendations: 1. In accordance with Comment No. 8 above, amend the 

proposed ordinance to require that a report be submitted 
by the SFUSD to the Board of Supervisors on or before 
August 31, 2000 pertaining to the actual results of the 
subject requested Elementary Arts Education Program 
expenditures of $657,000. 

2. Approval of the proposed ordinance, as amended, is a 
policy matter for the Board of Supervisors. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

September 29, 1999 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 




[arvev M. Rose 



cc: Supervisor Yee 

Supervisor Bierman 
President Ammiano 
Supervisor Becerril 
Supervisor Brown 
Supervisor Katz 
Supervisor Kaufman 
Supervisor Leno 
Supervisor Newsom 
Supervisor Teng 
Supervisor Yaki 
Clerk of tbe Board 
Controller 
Legislative Analyst 
Matthew Hymel 
Stephen Kawa 
Ted Lakey 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



SEP-22-1999 16:35 



SFUSD BUDGET 8. POSITION 



Attachment '. 
Fage 1 of 2 



SAN FRANCISCO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT 
BUDGET OPERATIONS OFFICE 



S/22/»i. 4.19 ft 



PROPOSED BUDGET 
FOR THE ELEMENTARY ARTS PROGRAM 



SCHOOL 



• EXROLLME.ST 
AS OF 9/2M9 



SCHOOL YE.AR 199-2000 
PROPOSED BUDGET 



ALAMU 


693 S 


1 4,458. 00 


ALVARADO 


466 S 


9.749.00 


ARGONNE 


402 S 


8.410.00 


CARMICHAEL. BESSIE 


391 S 


8.1S0.00 


HARTE. BRET 


434 $ 


9.979.00 


BRYANT 


243 S 


5.O84.C0 


BUENA VISTA 


362 5 


7.573 00 


CABRILLO 


318 S 


6653.00 


CHINESE ED. CT. 


53 S 


1.I09.0C 


CLARENDON 


587 S 


12JI0.00 


LILIENTHAL, CLAIRE (k-5) 


452 S 


9.456.00 


CLEVELAND 


367 S 


7.671.00 


YU. ALICE FONG (k-5) 


303 S 


6J39.00 


SLOAT. COMM. 


364 J 


7615.0C 


LAU. GORDON J 


677 S 


14.163.00 


S. F. COMMUNITY (k-5) 


213 $ 


4.498.0C 


WEBSTER, DANIEL 


439 $ 


9.184 CO 


MILK. HARVEY 


242 S 


5.063.00 


DREW, CHARLES 


291 S 


6,0100 


DE AVILA. WILLIAM 


291 S 


o.GM CO 


TAYLOR. E. R. 


690 S 


1 -M15.00 


EL DORADO 


333 S 


6.966 00 


COBB, WILLIAM 


244 S 


5,104.00 


FA1RMOUNT 


356 S 


7.44I.C0 


FILIPINO F.D. CT. 


54 S 


1.I30.0C 


KEY, F. S. 


509 S 


10641.00 


McCOPPIN, PRANK 


345 S 


7J217.00 


GARFIELD 


239 J 


5..XC ■.. 


PEABODY. GEORGE 


238 $ 


4.979.00 


GLEN PARK 


323 S 


6757 00 


GOLDEN GATE 


327 S 


6J41 00 


GRATTAN 


316 S 


661100 


GUADALUPE 


417 S 


8.724.00 


CHAVEZ. CESAR 


506 S 


KL586.00 


HILLCREST 


511 S 


10690.00 


CARVER, GEORGE W. 


382 S 


7391.00 


PARKER. JEAN 


366 S 


7657.00 


JEFFERSON 


516 S 


10.795.00 


MUIR. JOHN 


313 S 


t£tt.00 


SWETT. JOHN 


336 S 


7.029.00 


SERRA, JL"NIPERO 


286 S 


5.985 CO 


LAFAYETTE 


487 $ 


10.188.00 


LAKESHORE 


576 S 


12J150.00 


LAWTON (k-5) 


390 S 


8.159 00 


FLYNN. L. R. 


491 S 


10J72.0C 


LONGFELLOW 


575 S 


12429.00 



ras: FT1 999-2000 ELEMENTARY ARTS 



f»ig« 1 of I 



Rfi 



SEP-22-1999 16:35 



sfusd budget 8. position Attachment I 

Page 1 of 2 

SAN FRANCISCO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT 
BUDCET OPERATIONS OFFICE 



9/2299, 4:19 PU 



PROPOSED BUDGET 
FOR THE ELEMENTARY ARTS PROGRAM 



SCHOOL 



• ENROLLMENT SCHOOL YEAR 199-2000 
AS OF 9/20/99 PROPOSED BUDGET 



MARSHALL 


271 


S 


5,669.00 


McKlNLEY 


258 


s 


5.397.00 


MIRALOMA 


325 


s 


6,799.00 


MOSCONE GEORGE 


355 


s 


7,427.00 


MISSION ED. CT. 


139 


s 


2,908.00 


MONROE 


454 


s 


9.498.00 


NEW TRADITIONS 


194 


s 


4.058.00 


ORTEGA, JOSE 


417 


s 


8,724.00 


SUNSET 


233 


s 


4,874.00 


REVERE, PAUL 


557 


s 


11,652X10 


STEVENSON, R. L. 


480 


s 


10,042.00 


PARKS, ROSA 


346 


s 


7,238.00 


REDDING 


360 


s 


7,531.00 


ROOFTOP (k-5) 


381 


s 


7,971.00 


WO, Y1CK 


248 


s 


5,188.00 


SANCHEZ 


391 


s 


8.180.00 


SHERIDAN 


366 


s 


7,657.00 


SHERMAN 


458 


s 


9,581.00 


MALCOLM X ACA- 


413 


s 


8,640.00 


SPRING VALLEY 


410 


s 


&ST7.Q0 


KING, STARR 


357 


s 


7.468.00 


SUNNYS1DE 


330 


s 


6504.00 


SUTRO 


283 


s 


5,920.00 


TREASURE ISLAND (k-5) 


379 


s 


7.929.00 


TWENTY FIRST CENT, (k-5) 


209 


s 


4.372.00 


TENDERLOIN COMMUNITY 


215 


s 


4.498.00 


ULLOA 


511 


s 


10.690.00 


VIS. VALLEY 


458 


$ 


9,581.00 


CHIN, JOHN YEHALL 


235 


s 


4,916.00 


WEST PORTAL 


546 


s 


11,422.00 




SCHOOL SITES 


28,295 


s 


591,935.00 | 




CONSULTANT 




s 


30,000.00 


SUPPLIES AND NEWSLETTER 




s 


10.000.00 


EMERGENCIES 




s 


25.065.00 




OPERATING COST: 




s 


65,065.00 | 




TOTAL PROGRAM COST: 




s 


657,000.00 | 



•SOURCE: SFi;SD DATABASE 



ra«: FY*1OT9-2O0O ELEMENTARY ARTS 



PaS«2of 2 



02/86/19,5 05:42 Attachnent II 



SF USD 



Enrique D. Navas 
Chief Finanri.il Officer 
Ph. (415)241-6542 • FAX*241-o4A2 
ent vJS&n niseMusd.edu 



SAN FRANCISCO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT S55 Franklin Strert - >" Floor - S*n Fraru isco. CA °U02-S2y9 



September 24, 1999 



MEMORANDUM 

TO: AJan Gibson 

Budget Analyst Office 

FROM; Enrique D Navas ^ 

SUBJECT: FINANCE AND LABOR COMMITTEE, 09//29/99. ITEM 1 1 FILE 99-1 723 

The following is the District's response to your inquiry: 

(a.) The District does not receive dedicated funding from the State to support 
this enhanced arts program In the last two fiscal years the Distnct was 
able to identify one-time revenues to support the program. However, in 
the last few years the allocation of unrestricted dollars frcm the State has 
been minimal while at the same time there has been a sharp increase in 
categorical funding. This trend has caused districts throughout the state, 
including SFUSD, to barely keep up with the costs associated with 
unfunded federal, state and local mandates, collective bargaining, utility 
and other operating costs. The Distnct was not able to identify on-going 
or one-time revenue to support this valuable program. 

(b.) As required by the State, the District maintains a 2% appropriation for 
contingencies. The District has complied with this requirement last fiscal 
year and projects to maintain such a reserve for the current fiscal year. 
The amount set aside in the FY 99-00 is $7.8 million. 



an aquaJ opportunity •mployar 



-2992 300 Rm. 9-93 







1 


s 








si 


sJ 




f\) 




rV> 


1 




si 


c/1 


r 


? 


^1 


■a 


i 


1 


<a 


3 


%-* 








\ 


•5 


i 


4 


* 


s 


1 

o 




H" 


1 

0. 


2 

U- 












f*. 










<o 










r^ 


r 


d 






a 

Z 


^0 


■5 




O 


X 


g 


J 






I. 


4 


1- 


<D 


JG 




















0. 


F 


u 







SAN FRANCISCO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT 
BUDGET OPERATIONS OFFICE 

PROPOSED BUDGET 
FOR THE ELEMENTARY ARTS PROGRAM 



Attachment III 
Page 1 ot z 

9/24/99, 1136 AM 



SCHOOL 



• ENROLLMENT 
ASOF9/2M9 



SCHOOL YEAR 1999-2000 
PROPOSED BUDGET 



ALAMO 


693 


s 


15332.00 


ALVARADO 


466 


s 


1O243.00 


ARCONNE 


402 


s 


SJ36.00 


CARMICHAEL, BESSIE 


391 


$ 


1394.00 


HARTE, BRET 


434 


s 


9,539.00 


BRYANT 


243 


s 


5J41.00 


BUENA VISTA 


362 


s 


7,957.00 


CABR1LL0 


318 


s 


6^90.00 


CHINESE ED. CT. 


53 


s 


1,165.00 


CLARENDON 


587 


s 


12302.00 


L1LIENTHAL, CLAIRE flc-5) 


452 


s 


9535.00 


CLEVELAND 


367 


s 


1067.00 


YU, ALICE FONG (k-51 


303 


s 


&660.00 


SLOAT, COMM. 


364 


s 


SJ3O1.0O 


LAU, GORDON J. 


677 


s 


14330.00 


S. F. COMMUNITY (k-51 


215 


s 


4,726.00 


WEBSTER, DANIEL 


439 


s 


9,649.00 


MILK, HARVEY 


242 


s 


5.319.00 


DREW, CHARLES 


291 


s 


6396.00 


DE AVTLA, WILLIAM 


291 


s 


6396.00 


TAYLOR E. R. 


690 


s 


15,166.00 


ELDORADO 


333 


s 


7319.00 


COBB. WILLIAM 


244 


s 


5^63.00 


FAIRMOUNT 


356 


s 


7J25.00 


FILIPINO ED. CT. 


54 


s 


1,1*7.00 


KEY, F. S. 


509 


s 


11,188.00 


Mc COPPIN, FRANK 


345 


s 


7383.00 


GARFIELD 


239 


$ 


5353.00 


PEABODY, GEORGE 


238 


s 


5331.00 


GLEN PARK 


323 


s 


7.100.00 


GOLDEN GATE 


327 


s 


7.1*7.00 


GRATTAN 


316 


s 


6346.00 


GUADALUPE 


417 


s 


9366.00 


CHAVEZ, CESAR 


506 


s 


1 1322.00 


HILLCREST 


511 


s 


1133Z00 


CARVER, GEORGE W. 


382 


s 


1396.00 


PARKER, JEAN 


366 


s 


8.045.00 


JEFFERSON 


516 


s 


11342.00 


MUIR.JOHN 


313 


s 


6330.00 


SWETT, JOHN 


336 


s 


7385.00 


SERRA, JUNIPERO 


286 


s 


6386.00 


Lafayette 


487 


$ 


10.704.00 


LAKESHORE 


576 


s 


12360.00 


LAWTON (k-51 


390 


s 


8372.00 


FLYNN.L. R. 


491 


s 


10,792.00 


LONGFELLOW 


575 


s 


12.639 00 



ns: PH9»»-2000 ELEMENTARY ART V1 



Pago 1 of 2 



SAN FRANCISCO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT 
BUDGET OPERATIONS OFFICE 



Attachment II 
Page 2 of 2 

J/2«4,11:MAM 



PROPOSED BUDGET 
FOR THE ELEMENTARY ARTS PROGRAM 



SCHOOL 



•ENROLLMENT 

as of mm<i 



SCHOOL YEAR 1999-2006 
PROPOSED BUDCET 



MARSHALL 


271 


S 


5357.00 


Mckinley 


258 


s 


5,671.00 


M1RAL0MA 


325 


s 


7.144.00 


MOSCONE. GEORGE 


355 


s 


7.803.00 


MISSION ED. CT. 


139 


s 


3.055.00 


MONROE 


454 


$ 


9.979 00 


NEW TRADITIONS 


194 


s 


4.264.00 


ORTEGA. JOSE 


417 


s 


9.166 00 


SUNSET 


233 


I 


5.121.00 


REVERE, PAUL 


557 


s 


112<3.00 


STEVENSON. R. L. 


430 


s 


10.550.00 


PARKS, ROSA 


346 


s 


7.605.00 


REDDrNG 


360 


s 


7.91300 


ROOFTOP (k-5) 


38! 


s 


8J74.0O 


WO, YICK 


248 


s 


5.451.00 


SANCHEZ 


391 


s 


8.594 00 


SHERIDAN 


366 


s 


8,045. 00 


SHERMAN 


458 


s 


10.067.00 


MALCOLM X ACA. 


413 


s 


9JD7800 


SPRING VALLEY 


410 


$ 


9,012.00 


KING. STARR 


357 


s 


7,847.00 


SUNNYSIDE 


330 


s 


7,253.00 


SUTRO 


283 


s 


6.220.00 


TREASURE ISLAND (k-5) 


379 


s 


8T30 00 


TWENTY FIRST CENT, (k-5) 


209 


s 


4.594.00 


TENDERLOIN COMMUNITY 


215 


I 


4.726.00 


ULLOA 


511 


s 


U .232.00 


VIS. VALLEY 


458 


s 


10,067.00 


CHIN. JOHN YEHALL 


235 


s 


5.165.00 


WEST PORTAL 


546 


s 


12,001.00 




SCHOOL SITES 


28.295 


s 


621324.00 | 




SUPPLIES AND NEWSLETTER 




! 


10.000.00 


EMERGENCIES 




s 


25.076.00 




OPERATING COST: 




s 


35,976.00 1 




TOTAL PROGRAM COST: 




s 


657.000.d0 1 



m: FY*199»-2OC0 ELEMENTARY ART V1 



P*9» 2 at 2 



TGTfiL P. 02 



qn 




City and County of San Francisco 

Meeting Minutes 

Finance and Labor Committee 

Members: Supervisors Leland Yee, Sue Merman and Tom Ammiano 
Clerk: Mary Red 



City Hall 

1 Dr. Carlton B. 

Goodlett Place 

San Francisco, CA 

94102^689 



Wednesday, October 06, 1999 



10:00 AM 
Regular Meeting 



City Hall, Room 263 



Members Present: Leland Y. Yee, Sue Bierman, Tom Ammiano. 



noni . lMENTO DCPT, 



Meeting Convened 

The meeting convened at 10:00 a.m. 



OCT J 3 tggg 

SAN FRANCISCO 
PUBLIC LIBRARY 



991573 [Appropriation of Bond funds for construction projects at the Community College District) 

Ordinance appropriating $20,460,150, San Francisco Community College District, of Educational Facility 
Bond proceeds for the acquisition and construction of educational facilities (buildings, structures and 
improvements) for fiscal year 1999-2000. (Controller) 

(Fiscal impact.) 

8/1 1/99, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance and Labor Committee. 

9/22/99, AMENDED, AN AMENDMENT OF THE WHOLE BEARING NEW TITLE. Heard in Committee. Speakers: Harvey Rose, 
Budget Analyst; Dr. Phillip Day, Chancellor, City College of San Francisco; Ted Lakey, Deputy City Attorney; Supervisor Yee; 
Supervisor Ammiano. Oppose: Anastasia Yovanopoulos. 
9/22/99, CONTINUED. Continued as amended to October 6, 1999. 

Heard in Committee. Speakers: Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst; Laura Bordelon, Mayor's Office of Public 
Finance; Ed Harrington, Controller; Phillip Day, Chancellor, City College of San Francisco; Supervisor 
Ammiano; Supervisor Yee. 
RECOMMENDED by the following vote: 
Ayes: 3 - Yee, Bierman, Ammiano 



991737 [Maximum Loan Amount, Nonprofit Performing Arts Organization! 
Supervisors Ammiano, Bierman, Yee 

Ordinance amending Administrative Code Section 50.22 to increase the maximum amount of a loan that may 
be made to a non-profit performing arts organization from $150,000 to $200,000. 

(Amends Section 50.22.) 

9/13/99, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance and Labor Committee. 

Heard in Committee. Speakers: Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst; Supervisor Ammiano; Joe LaTorre. Mayor's 
Office of Housing; Supervisor Bierman. In Support: Tony Kelly, Potrero Hill Boosters; Ron Miguel. 
Supervisor Yee added as cosponsor. 
RECOMMENDED by the following vote: 
Ayes: 3 - Yee, Bierman, Ammiano 



City and County of San Francisco 



Printed at 3:26 PM on 10T/V9 



Finance and Labor Committee Meeting Minutes October 6, 1999 



991828 [Government Funding, Gift to City of Taipei to fund earthquake relief efforts| 
Supervisors Teng, Yaki, Kaufman, Bierman. Becerril 

Ordinance appropriating $200,000 from the General Fund Reserve for an emergency gift to the City of Taipei 
to fund earthquake relief efforts, through the Office of the Mayor, for fiscal year 1999-2000. 
9/27/99, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance and Labor Commxtec 

Heard in Committee. Speakers: Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst. Supervisor Teng. Victor Tseng. Director 
General, Taipei's Economic and Cultural Office. Elizabeth Liu. CoChair. S F /Taipei Sister City . Super\isur 
Yee; Supervisor Ammiano; Ted Lakey. Deputy City Attorney Amended to add $50,000 to be used for 
children's services. Continued to October 13. 1999. 

AMENDED, AN AMENDMENT OF THE WHOLE BEARING NEW TITLE. 

Ordinance appropriating $250,000 from the General Fund Reserve for an emergency gift to the City of Taipei 
to fund earthquake relief efforts, including $200,000 in unrestricted funding and $50,000 in funding for 
children's services, through the Office of the Mayor, for fiscal year 1999-2000. 
CONTINUED AS AMENDED by the following \ote: 
Ayes: 3 - Yee, Bierman. Ammiano 



99171 1 |Renewal and extension of existing seven (7) leases of real property all located in San Francisco for DPH 
effective July 1. 1999| 

Resolution authorizing retro-active extension and renewal of certain existing leases of real property required 
by the Department of Public Health. (Real Estate Depait^enn 
9/10/99, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance and Labor Committee 

Heard in Committee. Speakers: Haney Rose. Budget Analyst. Harry Quinn. Real Estate Department 
Amended to correct rental rate for lease no. I from S2900 to S3 2 50 per month 
AMENDED, AN AMENDMENT OF THE WHOLE MURING ^WIE TITLE. 
RECOMMENDED AS AMENDED b> the following \ote: 
Ayes: 3 - Yee, Bierman, Ammiano 



991712 [Amendment(s) to the architectural and engineering agreement for the Moscone Center Expansion 
Project) 

Resolution authorizing the Director of Administrative Services to execute amendment! s) to design agreement 
increasing the agreement sum from $9,526,326.38 to $14,026,326.38. (City Administrator) 

(Fiscal impact.) 

9/10/99. RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance and Labor Committee 

Heard in Committee. Speakers Harvey Rose. Budget Analyst. Leonard Tom. Director of Finance. Moscone 
Center Expansion Project. 
RECOMMENDED by the following Note: 
Ayes: 3 - Yee, Bierman. Ammiano 



City and County of San Francisco 2 Printed at 3:26 PM on l(k~V9 



Finance and Labor Committee 



Meeting Minutes 



October 6, 1999 



991720 [Authorizing Airport Commission to purchase 13 noise insulations (for 9 dwellings and 4 churches) not 
to exceed $220,472, in conformity with San Mateo's master planning process of noise reduction] 

Resolution authorizing the acquisition of thirteen (13) noise easements for properties in unincorporated San 
Mateo County as part of the County of San Mateo's Aircraft Noise Insulation Program. (Real Estate 
Department) 

9/13/99, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance and Labor Committee. 

Heard in Committee. Speakers: Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst; Harry Quinn, Real Estate Department. 
RECOMMENDED by the following vote: 
Ayes: 3 - Yee, Bierman, Ammiano 



991752 [Reserved Funds, Port Commission) 

Hearing to consider release of reserved funds. Port Commission (San Francisco Harbor Operating Fund Loan, 
Ordinance No. 40-98), in the amount of $260,000 to fund the Hyde Street Fishing Harbor project to be 
performed by the Contractor, Dutra Dredging Company. (Port) 
9/15/99, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance and Labor Committee. 

Heard in Committee. Speakers: Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst; Nieret Mizushima. Project Manager, Port of 
S.F.; Supervisor Yee. 

APPROVED AND FILED by the following vote: 
Ayes: 3 - Yee, Bierman, Ammiano 



991761 [Permitting non-City workers to perform work for the City because non-City workers can perform the 
work at a lesser cost than City employees - Intake and shelter services to status offenders] 

Resolution concurring with the Controller's certification that intake and shelter services to status offenders can 
be practically performed by private contractor for lower cost than similar work services performed by City and 
County employees; retroactive to July 1, 1999. (Juvenile Probation Department) 
9/22/99, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance and Labor Committee. 

Heard in Committee. Speakers: Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst; Lonnie Holmes, Juvenile Probation 
Department. 

RECOMMENDED by the following vote: 
Ayes: 3 - Yee, Bierman, Ammiano 



991481 [Parking Collection System Contract] 
Supervisor Yee 

Hearing to consider the City's parking collection system contract with PRWT Services, Inc. 
7/26/99, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance and Labor Committee. 

Heard in Committee. Speakers: Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst; Stuart Sunshine, Director, Department of 
Parking and Traffic; Raymond Solino. President, PRWT Services, Inc.; Supervisor Yee; Supennsor Ammiano; 
Supervisor Bierman; Mathew Hymel, Mayor's Budget Office; Supervisor Newsom; Supenisor Teng. 
Opposed: Sharon Bread; Jake M. 

CONTINUED TO CALL OF THE CHAIR by the following vote: 
Ayes: 3 - Yee, Bierman, Ammiano 



City and County of San Francisco 



Printed at .1:2' PM on lOTM 



Finance and Labor Committee Meeting Minutes October 6, 1999 



990652 [Paramedic Services| 

Supervisors Yee, Newsom 

Hearing to consider the cost of transferring paramedic services from the Health Department to the Fire 

Department. 

4/5/99, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED lo Finance and Labor Committee 

CONTINUED TO CALL OF THE CHAIR by the following vote: 

Ayes: 3 - Yee, Bierman, Ammiano 



ADJOURNMENT 

The meeting adjourned at 12:05 p.m. 



City and County of San Francisco * Printed at 3:2' M on 10 1 V9 



n 



1 V 

f.le. Il-lftl) 

TO: 
FROM: 



CITY AND COUNTY 




£35^ Public Library, Gov't Information Ctr.. 5 th Fir. 

Attn: Susan Horn, Dept. 41 
OF SAN FRANCISCO 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

1390 Market Street, Suite 1025, San Francisco, CA 94102 (415) 554-7642 
FAX (415) 252-0461 



October 1, 1999 DOCUMENTS DEPT. 

^Finance and Labor Committee ,,. . . 

< Budget Analyst SAN FRANCISCO 

SUBJECT: October 6, 1999 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting C LIBRARY 



Item 1 -File 99-1573 

Note: This item was continued by the Finance and Labor Committee at its meeting 
of September 22, 1999. 



Department: 



Item: 



Amount: 
Source of Funds: 

Description: 



San Francisco Community College District (SFCCD) 

Ordinance appropriating $20,460,150 of General 
Obligation Bonds (Educational Facility Bonds, 1997 - 
SFCCD) Series 1999A proceeds for the acquisition, 
construction, and upgrading of educational facilities at 
the San Francisco Community College District, costs of 
issuance, and debt service for fiscal year 1999-2000. 

$20,460,150 

General Obligation Bonds (Educational Facility Bonds, 
1997 - SFCCD) Series 1999A, hereafter referred to as 
"Educational Facility Bonds, Series 1999A". 

On June 3, 1997, a total of $50,000,000 in General 
Obligation Bonds for the acquisition, construction, and/or 
reconstruction of SFCCD educational facilities was 
approved by the electorate. Educational Facility Bonds, 
Series 1999A were issued on June 16, 1999 to fund the 
acquisition, construction and/or reconstruction of 
educational facilities for the SFCCD. According to Ms. 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

October 6, 1999 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



Laura Opsahl-Bordelon of the Mayor's Office of Public 
Finance and Economic Development, the total Bond 
proceeds for Educational Facility Bonds, Series 1999A are 
in the amount of $20,460,150. 



Budget: 



The subject supplemental appropriation would 
appropriate $20,460,150 in bond proceeds for the 
following: (a) $9,095,793 for the acquisition of land to be 
used for campuses for the SFCCD in Chinatown and the 
Mission District; (b) $2,745,715 for health and safety 
upgrades; (c) $250,457 for disability access improvements; 
(d) $2,003,834 for renovation projects; (e) $5,967,427 for 
technology, network, and electrical upgrades; (f) $250,000 
for childcare facilities; (g) $79,211 for bond issuance 
costs; and (h) $67,713 for debt service costs (accrued 
interest payments and a portion of the underwriter's 
premium). 

The budget is summarized as follows: 



Purpose of Appropriation 



Land acquisitions 

(Chinatown/Mission District) 
Health and safety upgrades 
Disability access improvements 
Renovation projects 
Technology, network, and electrical 

Upgrades 
Childcare facilities 

Subtotal 

Bond Issuance Costs 
Debt Service 

TOTAL 



Incurred 
as of 06/30/99 


Not Yet 
Expended 


Total 

Estimated 

Costs 


$9,095,793 


$0 


$9,095,793 


1,120,715 



1,278,834 

882,427 


1,625,000 
250,457 
725,000 

5,085,000 


2,745,715 

250,457 

2,003,834 

5,967,427 



$12,377,769 


250.000 
$7,935,457 


250.000 
$20,313,226 







79,211 
67.713 


79,211 
67.713 


$12,377,769 


$8,082,381 


$20,460,150 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

2 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

October 6, 1999 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

Comments: 1. In November 1997, the Board of Supervisors 

authorized and directed the sale of General Obligation 
Bonds (Educational Facility Bonds, 1997 - SFCCD) Series 
1998B not to exceed $17,000,000 ( Resolution No. 1027- 
97). The issuance of General Obligation Bonds 
(Educational Facility Bonds, 1997 - SFCCD) Series 
1998B was delayed due to litigation related to Proposition 
D which had been placed on the same June 3, 1997 ballot 
to authorize the City to issue Football Stadium Bonds to 
finance a portion of a new stadium development project at 
Candlestick Park. This litigation delayed bond counsel 
issuing a final opinion on the validity of the SFCCD 
bonds. Consequently, the SFCCD requested that 
additional bond funds be issued to cover project costs for 
an additional year. On March 1, 1999 the Board of 
Supervisors authorized and directed the sale of 
Educational Facility Bonds, Series 1999A not to exceed 
$23,000,000 (File 99-0197), thereby replacing the previous 
authorization of $17,000,000. This represented an 
increase of $6,000,000, or approximately 35 percent. 

Educational Facilities Bonds, Series 1999A were issued 
on June 16, 1999 (File 99-1154). According to Ms. 
Opsahl-Bordelon, the total Bond proceeds for Educational 
Facility Bonds, Series 1999B are in the amount of 
$20,460,150. 

2. On February 26, 1999 Mr. Goldstein submitted to the 
Finance Committee of the Board of Supervisors a budget 
breakdown of the proposed $20,313,226 capital 
improvements budget to be funded by Educational 
Facilities Bonds, Series 1999A. The capital 

improvements budget in the amount of $20,313,226 
shown in the Table on the previous page shows how the 
budget is currently allocated. Although the total budget 
of $20,313,226 remained unchanged, between February 
and September 1999 there have been various shifts in the 
allocation of funds between component capital 
improvement projects. Attachment I is a memorandum 
provided by Mr. Goldstein which identifies such budget 
reallocations and explains why they have occurred. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

3 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

October 6, 1999 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

3. The SFCCD has prepared Attachment II in response to 
questions raised by the Finance and Labor Committee at 
the Finance and Labor Committee meeting of September 
23, 199 and after conferring with the Budget Analyst, the 
Mayor's Office of Finance and the Controller's Office. 
Attachment II provides further detailed information on 
actual project expenditures to date and planned 
expenditures (a) for the major project areas ("Purpose of 
Appropriation" in the table above) and (b) for individual 
projects. Attachment II also provides a memorandum 
from Mr. Goldstein explaining variations from planned 
expenditures. 

4. As shown in Attachment II, SFCCD capital 
improvement project expenditures in the amount of 
$12,377,769, or approximately 61 percent of the subject 
$20,313,226 capital improvements budget, have already 
been incurred as of June 30, 1999, prior to obtaining 
Board of Supervisors approval. Attachment III is a 
memorandum from Mr. Goldstein which explains why the 
SFCCD incurred expenditures of $12,377,769 of the 
subject requested funds prior to obtaining appropriation 
approval from the Board of Supervisors. 

Recommendation: Because expenditures of approximately 61 percent, or 

$12,377,769, of the total requested capital improvement 
budget of $20,313,226 have already been incurred by the 
SFCCD prior to obtaining appropriation approval from 
the Board of Supervisors, approval of the proposed 
ordinance is a policy matter for the Board of Supervisors. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

4 



Attachment 1 




VICE CHANCELLOR OF FINANCE & ADMINISTRATION 

33 GOUGH STREET . SAN r RAN CI SCO. CA 9C103-I 2 1-4 • 415. 2a 1 222B • FAX « I 5. 26 I .23-44 



To: Alan Gibson, Budget Analyst's Office 

From: Peter Goldsteinfvice Chancellor Finance & Administration 

Re: Bond Appropriation for the Community College District 

Date: September 17, 1999 

In response to your request I am providing additional information supporting the 
appropriation of the Community College District's bond proceeds. 

As you have noted, while the S20.3 million allocation request has not changed, 
the amount in each of the individual categories varies from the information 
presented in February 1999 when the Board of Supervisors authorized the sale 
of the bonds. There are several reasons for the changes. 

First, the full cost of items necessary for the acquisition of properties for the 
proposed permanent campuses for the Mission and Chinatown/North Beach 
areas is about $900,000 more than the figure in the February report. These costs 
are related to the preparation of the environmental impact reports and financing 
costs for the properties. As final totals were not available in February 1999, they 
were not submitted as part of the February request. Second, the need to 
proceed with the College District's technology project is more urgent due to 
networking needs related to the College District's management system and 
instructional programs. As a result about $500,000 more than the amount in the 
February report is now allocated for technology. To absorb these two increases 
while staying within the total allocation available in the first sale, the College 
District has reduced the amounts allocated to renovation and hearth and safety 
projects by a total of about $1 .5 million. These changes do not alter the overall 
allocation of the College District's $50 million bond package. Finally, costs 
initially associated with the College District's administration of these bond 
projects are now distributed into each project category and are no longer listed 
as a separate item. 

Thank you for your assistance and do not hesitate to contact me at 241 .2229 if 
you need any additional information. 

Cc: Dr. Philfip Day 

Laura Opsahl-Borderon 



BOARD OF TRUSTEES 
LAWRENCE WONC. PRESIDENT • DR. ANITA CRIER. VICE PRESIOENT 
ROBERT E. BURTON • JAMESMASKELLMAVO.il. • RODEL E. RODIS 



OR. NATALIE BERG 
ROBERT P. VARNI 



Z0"d PPSZ TfS STf 



NoiidaisiNiujaw 



cS:fT 666T-<LT-d33 




Attachment II 
Page 1 of 6 

VICE CHANCELLOR OF FINANCE & ADMINISTRATION 

33 GOUGH STREET • SAN FRANCISCO. CA 94 103-1214 • 415 2412229 • FAX 415 241 2 344 



To: The Board of Supervisors Budget Analyst 

K 

From: Peter Goldstein/Vice Chancellor of Finance & Administration 
Date: September 30, 1999 



I am writing to provide you with explanatory information related to the spreadsheets 
that I have attached. There is a separate spreadsheet for each project area 
contained in the College's bond issue. These spreadsheets show on a building by 
building basis, the original budget, expenditures through June 30, 1999, and planned 
expenditures for the recent bond sale. There is also a spreadsheet that provides the 
same type of information on a summarized level. 

The spreadsheets for the College's health & safety, and renovation projects require 
some additional explanation. At the bottom of each of these pages there is a set of 
four projects. While these projects clearly fit within the health & safety, and 
renovation categories, they were not originally included in the College's internal 
allocation of bond proceeds. The total amount expended for these four projects is 
about $1.8 million. A previous memo to the Board's Budget Analyst, explained in 
detail, the specific reasons behind the College's decision to advance its own funds 
prior to the sale of the bonds, including state-imposed deadlines for securing state 
funds. Nearly all of the expenditures for these four projects were incurred to 
leverage a much larger amount of state funds. The total amount leveraged for these 
four projects totaled nearly $8.6 million. If the college had not advanced its own 
funds for these projects, the $8.6 million would have gone to other counties. 

The College will allocate additional revenues to its bond fund to match the 
$1.8 million; thereby increasing the College's bond fund by $1.8 million. This 
revenue will effectively restore the health & safety and renovation project areas back 
to their original allocations. The source of this revenue is more than $2 million in 
additional state capital funding that the State Chancellor's Office has already 
awarded to the College. The College will draw these funds down from the state by 
using a part of the current bond sale as the required match. These expenditures will 
be for projects in the health & safety and renovation project areas. 

Thank you for your assistance and do not hesitate to contact me at 241-2229 if you 
need any additional information. 

Cc: Ed Harrington, Laura Borderlon. Dr. Phil Day Jr 

BOARD OF TRUSTEES 

LAWRENCE WONG. PRESIDENT • DR. AN :TA GR I ER . VICE PRESIDENT • DR NATALIE BERG 

ROBERT E BURTON • JAMESHASKELLMAVO.il • RODELE. ROD'S • ROBERT P VARNI 

DR. PHILIP R DAY, JR., CHANCELLOR 



Attachment II 
Page 2 of 6 







co 

o 

> 
o 

C 

cn_ 
o 

3 
(a 


> 

D 
> 


o 

1 < 

oi Si. 

s § 


Technology/Electrical 
Health & Safety 




"0 

"5" 
o 

> 

3 

B 
en 


<•> 

CO 

"cn 
CT) 
co 

CO 

*» 
o 




co 

~CO 
O 
O 

"o 
o 
o 


to 

CO 
^1 


</> 

"eo 
-J 
en 
"co 

00 

ro 


to 
"*. 
eo 

05 

ro 
-J 


o en 
1o "*> 
-»• ** 
co eo 
"en "co 
en co 




cn -n O 
_ 3 03 1 S 

2 2 s «* = 

* " 3 w S 

01 O- r- 5- m 
O O fD = C 

cd o «> = a 
cn ■ o cn 

o 3 & 


N> 
"eo 

-J 

co 


p 

o 

CD 
Ol 

Vi 

CO 

• CO 


o 


! "ro 11* 
-j i ro 
oo © 

! oo |Vi 
</» co -* 
o .u en 


CO 
CO 

ro 

"*. 

ro 
-o 




=■ m 

|s 

en =: 

co ^ 

2 • 
eo cn 

CO 


~J 

"to 

CO 
Cn 

en 
-J 




o 


to 

ro 
en 
o 
*>. 

Ol 


ro i -o. 
en ro 
o en 
"o "o 
o o 
o o 


->• en 
"en "o 
ro co 
en en 
"o "o 
o o 
o o 




m 

X 

•a -o 

3 Sj 

e 
cn 


</> 
ro 
o 
CO 

co 
"ro 
ro 

CT> 




H 

o 
"o 
co 

Ol 

"-J 

(D 
CO 


ro 
en 

o 

"*• 

en 

^1 


^ ro ro en 
ro o Vi "eo 

en o U cn 
O CO Ol M 
O 00 "-<l *k 

o co -» ro 

o u en ~J 


3 2. 

"• 0) 
03 — 
O O 
3 O 
Q. Ul 

CO ^ 

0) O 

1 • ■* 


to 

ro 
to 

OJ 

en 
o 




00 

o 
•u 
"ro 

o 


v> <s> </» 

</» .-* J" 9> 

s N « p 

*. ro ro ->l 
-^ en -J _co 
Vi "co Vi oo 
en oo eo co 

o ro co o 


vt 

-k 

o 
~t± 

-O. 

CD 

en 
ro 


CO JO 

CD O 
g 3 CD 

co § SL SL 

CU q_ 3 B 
"Ml 



C/> 
T| 

o 
o 
a 



o 

o 

&) 

o" 

3 
(/) 

fl> 

3 
Q. 

m 

x 

■D 
CD 

3 

a 



CD 

C/J 

«-* 

O 

D 

&) 

CD 
O 

*cd' 
o 



CD 
0) 



Attachment II 
Page 3 of 6 



"0 


C/l 


£1 


m 


ID 


O 


o 


> 


> 


X 


X 


■D 


"0 


■D 


~D 


"B 


X 


Tl 


X 


X 


X 


X 


X 


X 


X 


X 


X 


X 




3T 


o 




< 


3- 


o 


o 


5 
3 

01 

3 


a 


3 


3- 


3 


3 


— 


3T 


3T 


3" 


3 




3 


— 


3- 


3 


3 


— 


— 


~ 


~ 




a 

3 


E 
— 



3 


3 


3 


E 

a 


5f 
- 


0) 

3 




■ 


re 
■ 


re 


'- 


Cj 


■ 
0) 


■ 


■ 


re 
■ 


■ 


re 

01 


re 
- 


re 
■ 


re 

01 


re 


■ 

i 


re 
01 


re 

01 


re 
- 


o 

01 






3 


■ 
l/l 




O 


3" 





v> 


3 


3 


3 


3 


3 


3 


3 


3 


3 


3 


3 


3 


3 


3 


3 


3 


3 


3 


3 


3 












S 




i 


•< 










































n 
















3 

z 

03 




3 












































B 


-I 




tp 


CO 


2 


m 


O 


<D 


o 


> 


c_ 


r 




en 


co 


CO 


co 


Tl 


Z 


X 


< 


CO 


O 


O 


n 


n 


n 


O 


n 


03 




o 






o 
o 

CO 

■ 

re 
w 

O 

oi 

vi 

i/i 




o 

E 

5- 

re 

■ 


c/i 
■ 
o 

3 


< 

3 
l/l 


9 

3 
■ 

S 

3 

z 

CD 
re 

0) 

r> 


o 

3 
B 

3" 


o 

i 

3 
c 

3 


s 

3 

0) 

3 
•< 


> 

D 

S 
■ 
3 


3 

3 


- 

3 
3. 
a 

- 

c 
5 

3 


• 

s 

3 

B 


X 
■ 


r. 

3 
o 

a 

X 
:- 


o 

- 

— 


■< 

3 


m 
o 

01 

3 

n 

■ 

IS, 

3 
u. 

5 


o 

5 



>< 

3 


a 

n 
c 

ET 



n 

ID 
3 

5" 


C 
01 

> 


3 

a 

a 
= 

X 

o 
■ 

3T 


re 
Q 
O 
X 
< 
re 

■ 
H 
3- 


re 
■ 

< 
re 

> 

m 

* 

re 
3 


re 
- 

re 
> 




o 
B 
a 

m 

o 
o 

■ 
c 
re 


o 

3 
B 
3 
X 
•> 


o 

3 
3. 

X 
■ 


— 
EZ 
o 

u 
o 


■ 

I 

■ 

re 

X 
- 


a 

c 

E 

3 
O 












3- 

























































3 

VI 
























































































































H 
































































O 3- 

— 3 
































































CO o 
































































































































3 O 
































































a D 


v» 






























































>< 




















v> 




vi 










«« 




























vi 


o « 


O) 




























































j* 


c _D 


"to 








<n 


■U 


u> 


to 






Ol 


CO 


v» 


to 


CJ 


i- 


ID' 


— 


4^ 


CJ 


M 


■ 






oi 


CC 




CO 


ID 




00 


o. a 


& 








Ol 


O 


ro 


O 




Ol 




o 




-J 


CO 




£>. 




a 


ID 




& 


ro 


i- 


ID 


oi 


j» 


Jj> 


a 


oi 


^J 


co n 


u 








01 




NJ 


to 






--j. 


id 


W 


Ol 


■ 






o 




A. 


ID 


CO 


CO 


UJ 


rj 


*J 


UJ 


UJ 




->j 


a 


» ~ 


































































to 








to 




& 


Ol 




en 


i- 


o 


ro 


O 


CO 


iD 


UJ 


U) 


CJ 


■u 


a 


<D 


UJ 


a 




o 


ID- 


CO 


UJ 


--t 


CC 


o 


oi 




v» 


& 




O 


ro 


v> 


a 


~4 


Ol 


o 


O 


IS 


LT 


a 


o 












a 




UJ 


rj 


rj 






ID 


■ 


to 




o 


-J 


Ol 


-4 


o 


o 


ID 


IS 


CO 


-J 


CI 


ID 


ID 


-* 


to 


CO 


H 


o 


CO 


o 


UI 


cn 


Kl 


-» 


00 


--I 


-* 


to 


































































-< 
































































3- m 
































































^ 

"9, 3 


*» 






















































*» 








y a 


00 






v» 
























































Ol 3. 


OB 






M 






V> 




^J 


rj 






M 


ro 


rj 


r- 


i- 


ro 


M 


>j 


r- 


ro 


rj 


M 




ro 


►O 




-1 


M 


CC 


o 3 


M 






0) 






00 




to 


oi 




ro 


co 


to 


UJ 


w 


CJ 


CJ 


Ui 


UJ 


UJ 


UI 


ui 


UJ 


UJ 


UI 


u 


-* 


■ 


U> 


a 


to 






© 






V 




-J. 


ro 




Ol 


LJ 








i. 


Ul 


ui 




U) 


UJ 


UI 




UJ 


UJ 


U) 


oi 


to 


Ul 


CO 


3 v> 
to 


ro 






-J 


v» 


v» 


^J 


«» 


to 


O 


V 


CO 




& 


Ol 


Ol 


*► 


Ol 


oi 


a 


Ol 




oi 


Ol 


Ol 


oi 


01 


ro 


M 


oi 


-j 


-4 






Ol 


o 


o 


to 


o 


oo 


o 


o 


to 


-» 


ID 




























•u 


o-, 


-* 


~j 
































































m 
































































T) -0 


*» 






























































5 1 

a 3 


Ul 


















VI 


v> 


v> 




V" 


*r» 


«• 


<^> 


v> 




*• 




*« 






v> 


V 




^* 


vi 




VI 


"o 


















M 














a 


r>; 


*» 


ro 


















a 




a 


00 


















-J 


•H 


Ol 


to 


CO 




a 


Ol 


Ol 


b> 


~J 


Ol 


3 


oi 


'Ol 


a 


a 


oi 


a 


o 


oi 


oi 


? 


Ol 


















a 






Ol 


Ol 


O 


o 


o 


o 


a 


a 


B 


O 


o 


o 


a 


o 


a 


o 


a 


o 


o 


5 o. 


"o 


















o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


O 


a 


o 


o 


o 


O 


o 


B 


o 


o 


O 


o 


o 


o 


a 


o 


o 





o 
















o 


o 


o 


o 


a 


B 


a 


B 


o 


o 


o 


c 


3 


o 


O 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


c: 


* 


o 




| O 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


O 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 






























" 




































a _ 

~ 01 


•1 

Ul 


















v> 


*• 


v> 




* 


v> 


*» 


v» 


v> 




V 




V 






v» 


v» 




*• 


v> 




*• 


D - 
O O 
3 O 


io 






v> 










V> 


Ul 




Ol 


v> 


ro 




ro 


Ol 


*3 


V* 


ro 


*» 


UI 


v> 


*» 


ro 


Co> 


*» 


to 


Ul 


v> 


Ol 


d V) 


o> 




ro 






v> 






o 


-4 


Ol 


en 


O 


-J 


ro 


<o 


H 


oi 


tc 


--J 


ro 


■-J 


-«JJ] 


»o 


►o 


^( 




^1 




Ul 




^1 




on 






co 




to 


o 


Ol 


-~l 


CO 


ID 


u> 


w 




CJ 


u» 


u; 


u> 


UI 


UI 


UI 




UJ 


Ul 




IO 


Ul 


a 


CO — . 


'to 




"o 






"to 




^J 




o 




UJ 






u 


J> 


o» 


U) 


u> 


UI 


UJ 


UI 


UI 


UI 


CJ 


UJ 


a 


to 


"ui 


a 


Oi o 


IO 




-J 


v> 


«/> 




v> 


to 


a 


o 


CO 


Ol 


t~ 


o 


a 


*>. 


oi 


oi 


oi 


oi 


UI 


oi 


cn 


oi 


en 


oi 


ro 


M 


a 


-j 


"* 


-1 






Ol 


o 


o 


to 


o 


CD 


o 


o 


ID 


-fc 


<X> 




























*>. 


a. 


■* 


--i 


































































w x 



































































*» 






























































O 3 m 
























v» 










V 




























v> 


lalance 
lalning ( 
ond Bon 
Sale 


o 






v> 


v> 


v> 


VI 


v> 


to 


v» 


V> 


J* 




v» 


v> 


«• 


^ 


v» 




V 


fc» 


V 




V 


v> 


** 




v» 


v» 




J"* 


"to 






Ol 


to 


u 


to 


CO 


ui 






ro 


N. 1 




"ro 










Ol 


V* 




Ul 


UI 


*» 


to 


Ul 


v> 


ro 


-J 




s 


Ol 


o 




o 


Ol 


CO 


to 


v> 


01 




B 


cn 


to 


v» 


a 


Ol 




UI 




a 




*J 


U) 


CO 


CO 




o> 




CTi 




ui 


<DJ 




ro 




& 


en 




CO 


<-j 


cn 


CC 




en 


oi 


Jjk 


o 


CC 


UI 


o 


ro 


ro 


to 




cn 


^ 


to 


Ol 


■ 


Ol 


to 

CO 


to 


& 


& 


CO 


x( 


Ol 


Ol 


(D 


ID 


a 


o 


UJ 


oi 


(O 


UI 


^J 


c. 


oi 


Ul 


ID 


Ul 


B 


to 




to 


^1 


ui 


ro 


O 


-j 


en 


oi 


Ol 


& 


o 


<> 


Ol 


ro 


^1 




Ol 


Ol 




a 


CC 


en 


3: 




Ul 




a ° 


K) 


— 


^J 


Ol 


u 


o 


ID 


ID 


ID 


Ol 


^1 


CO' 


CC 


-^ 


^J 


H 


en 


w 


c" 


CO 


-* 


j^- 


B 


■ 


•u 


-* 


LD 


a 





Attachment II 
F>ge 4 of 6 







■a -a 

3" 3" 

2. 2. 

a u 

3 3 


■0 

3 

ro 

CJ 
3 


T3 

3^ 

2. 
5 

3 




Adams 

Alemany 
Downtown 


> > 

a a 
B) 01 
3 3 

UI VI 


■D TJ T3 "0 TJ "0 T3 T3 

3" S - 3" 3" 3" S - 3 1 3" 

(D 11 n <t 9 

01 filfilDIQIQIUOl 
3 3333333 


3- 

01 
3 


■0 

3 

fD 
01 
3 


13 
3 



01 

3 


-0 

— 
a 
01 
3 


Campus 
Phelan 


5 1 




r~ 

U 

3 
3' 
<a 

33 
rt> 

l/l 

O 

C 
O 

O 

O 

(0 

3 




3 

S 


3- 

<t> 

in 

CD 

s. 

a 

3' 



3 
CO 

01 
3 

m 

3 

(T> 
O 

•< 

33 

2. 
3 


CO 



<= 

CO 



5' 
ui 

O 

s 

VI 
UI 




3 

UI 




> 

a 

Q. 

5" 

3 
U 

n 


3 

5' 

CO 
O 
3 
O 

■< 


O 



S 
3 



s 

3 


> 


3 

3 
>< 


T3 O 

c a 
ui 3 

= ? 

UI O 

- ° 

M 

3 


> 



a 
■< 

3 


oil 

s ' 3 
■ c Z. 
=- « O 

3 — B 

3. 3 

c O 

O (0 

eg 

3 


W 

c 
a 
to 
3 

c 

3 
O 

3 


CO 

3 
3 

X 


CO 

O 
fD' 
3 
O 

a 

1 
Si 


CO 



c 

3" 

< 

3 


z 


3 
— 

O 

•< 
3 


I 


3. 
0' 

c_ 

c 

3 

n 


3 

a 


< 

Ul 

c 

01 

1 

UI 


n 

<S 
01 

<' 

a 
> 

a. 

Ul 

m 

X 



3 

UI 


n 

SI 
<' 



> 

3. 

Ul 


O 

O 

3 

sr 

3 

SL 


O 



B 
a 

X 

SL 


03 

01 

3 

01 

CD 

X 

Si. 


CD 

E 

3 


o 
"to 

« 

UI 

.u 

UI 




to 




to 




to 




to 






to 

CO 

CD 
O 
"O 
O 
O 


to 

a> 
en 
Vi 

-J 


to 

ro 
"*>. 

co 

"2 

CD 


ro 
10 

"3 

ro 


to 

ro 
ro 
"01 


to 

CO 
Ol 
CO 

O 

"to 
to 

CO 


CO 


ro 
u 

A. 

CO 


*o 

CO 

--I 

CT) 



Ol 


to 

'cn 

CO 


to 

Ol 

on 

CO 
CD 


</» to 
ro u 

CO 

ro ro 

"00 00 

CO -J 

co cn 


to 

JO 
UI 

CO 

O 


t» 

-J 

CO 

CO 

w 


to 

to 
01 
"0 


to 

ro 

*- 
cn 
"co 
to 

-4 


to 

ro 

CO 

"cn 

CO 
CO 


to 

to 
■u 

CO 


to 

Ol 


"0 
to 


O X 
2. CD 

<o 0) 

gs 

- Bo 

g w 
O.SL 

(Q O 


ro 
o 
Vi 




to 

tO 

ro 
to 


to 

co 
"0 

~t 

UI 


to 

ro 
to 

"ro 
-1 


to 
a> 






M 

O 


to 




O 





to 

O 


to 

cn 
"ro 

W 

to 


00 

w 


10 


*o 




to 




to 




to 
Ui 
u 

CD 
CO 


to 

_--l 

CO 




to 




to 




to 

ro 
01 

CO 


to 
ro 

CO 






to 




to to 
-0 ro 
cn to 
1 Vi 
ro co 
•u ro 


H 

3- m 

i-s 
|s 

w Q. 

en sr 

" R 
a 
to ui 

CO 


v» 

"cn 
ro 

UI 

"a 
o 
o 




to 




to 




V 









•*• 
1 Ol 

i O 
4ft O 
O O 


tO 
CO 

en 


§ 






to 















*ft v> «• 
M -* -» 

OO O 
OOO 

1 O i "0 "0 
■bo 
0000 


to 




to 



p 







to 




to 



"0 




to 




to 

UI 


"0 





to 
cn 







m 

3 | 

? • 

^ D. 

CO 

UI 


v> 

ro 
Vi 

UI 

Vi 

UI 




to 

IO 
'■U 

ro 

to 


to 

to 
"0 
-J 

UI 


to 

ro 

to 

K> 

-1 

i- 


to 

o> 
"a> 

Cn 

O 




1 to 

1 ">• 
1 UI 

"0 
«0 



to 

CO 

en 


"0 







to 




to 

K 

Ol 
M 

ro 

to 


*♦ 

00 
CJ 


ro 





1 to 
ro 


1 
"0 

to 




v> to 



U _~4 
CO "-k 
00 OO 

w 


to 




to 



"0 





to 

ro 
01 

'2 

CO 


to 

ro 

CO 

"0 


X- 


to 




to 

ro 
cn 
"0 
ro 


to 

-0 
to 
Vi 

CO 

ro 


00 - ^ 

° 2, 

g ° 5 

CO ^ 

0) UI 

■ ~ s 


00 

^1 
w 

00 

CO 

o 




to 
"*. 

K) 

to 


CO 

"0 
-J 

UI 


ro 
to 

"ro 


to 

O) 

01 

K 



to 




to 

CO 
CD 
O 
O 
O 
O 


<* g 

£ UI 

O CO 

Vi ui 

*. 
-j en 


to 
*. 
10 

JO 

00 

-0. 
ro 


</» "ro 

ro o> 
ro *. 

O) Vi 

ro x. 


CD CO -k 

"0 "01 "o> 

-l cn co 


v> «/» 

10 *» ro 
01 to ro 
a> -0 yi 
co *!u 01 
-* ui to 
CO O UI 


to 

& 

N 

"cn 

CO 




to 

-1 

CD 
CJ 


to 

cn 
00 

to 

CD 


</» 

ro 
10 

"co 
to 


to 

ro 

CD 

"01 

CD 


to 

01 
to 

"0 
CD 

to 


to 

CD 

_o 
ro 
CO 

-J 


00 33 

CO <D 

g 3 CD 

00 § Si. Si 

01 Q. 3 Bl 
O D CO 



t7) 

-n 
O 
o 

c 

■ 

I 

CD 

SL 

ST 
fi) 

3 

a 

v. 

fi) 

cT 
-2 

T3 



Attachment II 

^age b of 6 "" 



"0 


1 


"□ 


■D 


a 


> 


> 


> 


T3 


"0 


-o 


-o 


T3 


X 


T3 


-o 


"3 


t3 


X 


"B 


X 




3" 


=7 


— 


3" 


o 


o 

5 

CJ 

3 


a. 


Cl 


3" 


— 


— 


— 


3 


m 


3" 


3 


— 


— 


— 


3 


~ 






2. 

s 


O 

i 


o 
cj 


5 


i 

3 


0) 

5 


01 

3 


• 
0) 


a 
■ 


■ 

CJ 


o 

CJ 


■ 

CJ 


■ 

CJ 


(D 
01 


■ 
01 


■ 
01 


o 

■ 


■ 

CJ 


■ 

CJ 


■ 

01 


O 






3 


3 


3 


3 


O 

S 

3 


i/i 


i/i 


3 


3 


3 


3 


3 


3 


3 


=; 


3 


3 


3 


3 


9 


01 
















■< 
































3 

X) 
B 

VI 


H 




-D 


to 


O 


1- > 


o 


> 


c_ 


c_ 


1 ^ 

■2 o) 
? = 

tf> o 

— 0> 

E. 3 
| * 

1 j; 


c/> 


CO 


CO 


CO 


Z 


X 


< 


o 


n 


O 


O 


cc 




o 




3 
o 

CJ 
3 

m 

3 

a 

(3 

>< 


o 
o 
co 

o 

o 
l/l 

O 

CJ 


cj 

-r 
$ 

o 

<D 

l/l 

CO 


3 

2L 
o 
o 

3 


o 
i 
3 

o 
3 


o 

5 

CJ 


o 

— 

> 

Cj- 
01 

3 
i/i 

O 


o 
3 
> 

a 

01 

3 
i/i 

S 


a, 

o 

- 

c 
=; 
o 

3 


3 

3 
I 

CJ 


n 

i 
a 

n 
■ 

I 

CJ 


o 
r 

5 

o 

>< 

5 




a 
~ 



-< 
3 


O 

a. 

o 

c 

c 

5 

n 

e 


■ 
B 

> 

a 

■ 


3 

CJ_ 

< 
e 

> 

a 

Ul 

m 


c 
< 
> 

a 


o 

■ 
3 

X 

CJ' 


O 

E 
C 

X 


■ 

1 

c 
-. 
-T 

CJ_ 


W 

c 
E 






X 


l/l 


c 








-< 


0) 














3 




X 










3 

to 






o 
o 


o 
o 
3 

i 


3 
CD 




3 
IQ 

B 
3 
O 

<< 






3 


3 


o o 

• 5. 












O 




c 
3 
l» 




























































O 


















































t ? 


v> 






























c^ 


VI 
















3 3 


co 












VI 


v> 


V> 


v> 


V 




o^ 


v> 


v> 






v» 


v> 


M 


v> 


v> 


v> 


v> 


01 O 


i- 














co 


ro 


CJ 


ro 


■ 


v> 




en 


■ 


"ro 




4k 


ro 


CO 


4k 


CO 


CO 


on 


CD 0) 

c — 

a o 


co 












oo 


co 




o 


Ol 


CO 


-4 


-o 


ro 


ro 


^1 


00 


CO 


o 


L0 


ro 


o 


c 


-k 












Ol 


Ol 


ro 


Ul 


B 


■«J 


CO 


a 


CO 


U0 


o 


CO 


O 


J-* 


CO 


ro 


CO 


4k 


a 










o 


".u 


"-J 


■u 


o 




>o 


«j 


is 


"en 


"co 


'to 


"oo 


Ol 


"4k 


'^i 


CO 


"j> 


to 3 


ro 


V* 


</> 


v> 


«/» 


o 


o 


CO 


ro 


J> 


o 


o 


ro 


u 




o 


co 


en 


CJ 


CD 


CO 


00 


CO 


B 


-0. 


© 


o 


o 


O 


o 


o 


00 


O 


o 


CD 


ro 


Ol 


~J 


-J 


-* 


on 


— ' 


<T> 


-* 


ro 


u 


-o 




















































H 




















































3- m 






















































v> 


















































Q 5 


-A 




*» 


v> 


V» 










































=■ 5. 


Vj 




ro 


4k 




M 






v> 






</> 


<J» 


t/> 


<yi 


v> 








v> 




«• 


v. 


v» 


V 


a> — 


^ 




lO 


-o. 










v» 




■ 






ro 








V* 


M 




CO 


■ 






cj E 

o 3 


CD 


o 


•u 


CJ 


j* 




-o 


ro 




CD 


Ol 


_J> 


Ol 


-* 








t^ 




■ 


er 


-J. 


ro 


CO 


"ro 




"o 


gj 




Vo 


"cn 




Ol 




rj 


"o 


M 






"cn 


~r*> 




"o 


"co 


Vj 


o 


CD (A 

8 


CO 




N 


■u 


-J. 


o> •» 


en 


CD 


VI 


ro 


•k 


CO 


•H 


w 


</» 


v> 


CO 


00 


v> 


ro 


00 




4k 


•u 




4k 


-k 


oi 


4k o 


ro 


Ol 


o 


u> 




on 


-jj 


CO 


o 


o 


cn 


-»■ 


o 


CO 


Ol 


CO 


CO 
















































m 

M 


















































■a -o 


v> 














v> 






v> 










v> 


v> 
















5 S 


"J 
















vi 








</> 






ro 


ro 
















ro 














o 


-J 




o 




Ol 






o 


o 
















to: 3 


Ol 














o 


Ol 




o 




o 






O 


B 
















E - 

e 

Ul 


"o 












"o 


"o 




"o 




"o 






o 


"o 
















o 




V» 


v> 


v» 


*♦ #* 


o 


o 


</> 


o 


*» 


o 


<^> 


«y^ 


o 


o 


v> 


v> 


v» 


v» 


v» 


v» 


v» 


o 




O 


o 


o 


o , o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


v> 














































00 - ^ 


M 




V> 


v» 


v> 




v> 






c» 










v> 


v> 
















o o 

2 " » 
a ■" « 

CO ^" O 

01 Ul o 


"o 
o 

CO 

eo 

u 

4> 




ro 


•u 




*» 




v> 






V* 


<y> 


vi 


V 


ro 


ro 




VI 




v» 


*» 


v> 


v< 




co 


-J. 








-J. 




o> 




en 


ro 




O 


o 


v> 


ro 




00 


o 








o 


•u 


Co 


J* 


-o. 


-J. 




00 


Ol 


J> 


Ol 


^ 


o 


o 


-* 


ro 




en 


B 


--I 


l-c 


Kj 


-A 


o 


Ol 


ro 


en 




Ol 


_k 


ro 


o 


M 


o 


o 


cn 


ro 




o 


CJ 


ro 


o 


~j 


&■ 


-J. 


0> «* 


01 


o 


c« 


ro 


4k 


O 


-»J 


CO 


o 


o 


CO 


CD 


v> 


ro 


00 




•u 




•c* 


■* 


Ol 


4k O 


ro 


Ol 


o 


u 




3^ 


^4 


CO 


o 


o 


cn 


"* 


o 


■ 


en 


CJ 


CJ 


a> "* Jl 


















































CO >TJ 


















































a o 


















































g 3 OD 
co 1 5L 5L 

01 q. 3 0) 


v> 






























4/1 


















J>l 




v» 


v» 

.u 


v> 


*♦ «* 


v> 


v» 


t/> 


<^ 




V> 


v> 


<s> 




v> 


v> 


V> 


v> 


v» 


v> 


v> 


V- 


*•£»• 




to 


-^ 




^ CJ 




ro 


ro 


i- 


V 




en 


■ 


"o 


to 


4k 


ro 


CJ 


u. 


ro 


CO 


Ol 


OB = O 

o ■ o 


IO 




o 


.u 




_» 00 


^1 


CO 


o 


00 


HJ 




Ol 




ro 


-J 


00 


o 


o 


o 


ro 


CO 


B 


"J. 










en 


CD 


Ol 


Ol 


00 




J> 




CD 


<o 


o 


00 


00 




-J 


cn 


ro 


ro 


Vj 


*j 


|h 


o 


tn <-» 
on ° 


Ik 


a 


i» 


"j> 


"CO 


"to 


00 


"cn 


"on 


"oo 


'4k 


"cn 


Ol 


}> 


CJ 


"j> 


'4k 


a° 


5°. 4k 






S *♦ o 


CO 


co 


ro 




en 


a 


x» 


co 




o 


o 


00 


CO 


Ol 


4k 


-J 


B 


CO .oC- 


- — ■ 




^; o o 


co 


CO 


o 


--I 


~j 


en 


CD 


CD 


^i 


— 


■* 


O 


en. 


ro 


en 


-* 


j> 





10 



Attachment II 
Page 6 of 6 



H 
O 




z 

ID 

s 
o 

3 
3 
B 

O 

S 

3 

o 

B) 

3 

■D 
C 

ui 




Z 

<D 

s 
s 

(/>' 
01 
o 

3 

o 

m 

3 

T3 
C 
0) 










H 
O 

SL 




D 
o 

i 
a 



S 

3 


> 

3 
a 

3 
•< 


o 

— 

3 

> 

a 
a 
3 

01 

CD 
-< 

3 


CD 

c 

a 

3' 

CD 








H 
O 

ST 






3" 
3 

> 

a 

B 

3 
m 



3" 

E 

u 

5 


Building 
Phelan Childcare 


Vt 

<£> 

"in 
o 
o 
"o 
o 
o 




Ol 

>>. 

Ol 

o 
"o 

o 
o 




•b. 
"■u 
en 

o 
"o 
o 
o 


co 
to' ro 

1 rt 

— -D 

CD = 
C in 
Q. 3: 

If 








to 
to 
ro 

Vo 

->4 




CO 

o 

Ol 


Ol 
01 

a 

o 


Vt 
M 

to 
«D 

Ol 
CO 
CO 


> 

O 

CD > 

O.O 
CO 2. 

a to 

** 3' 
SL 








Vt 

'id 

~J 

Ol 
CO 

oa 

IO 




00 
CD 

w 

Ul 




O 

5' 
5' 3- 

2 a 5 

00 p c ^ 

en Q. CD 

"s l 


vt 

to 
"o 
to 
en 
*-j 
to 
u 




to 
o> 
Vi 
o 
o» 

*>■ 

Ol 




Vt 

IO 

u 

CO 
CD 

o> 

CO 


3 m 
o x 

C "3 

!l 

2 3 

CD tfl 

to 








Vt 

o 




vt 

o 


Vt 

o 


o 


3m 

M 

Si 

u c 

S 3 

to tfl 
CO 








vt 









«0 




5!m 

si 

u c 

s s 

CD Ul 
CD 


o 




vt 

o 




v> 

o 


m 

X 

■o -o 

§ 1 

a 3 

5. CL 

a 

VI 








IO 
Ol 

o 

Ul 

-4 




s 

Ol 

-J 


o 
o 
o 

o 
o 


o 
o 
© 

o 

o 


m 

X 

5 g 

9r. 3 
— a 

=. Q- 
a> 

M 








v> 

M 
Ol 


"0 










</» 
ro 

01 
e 
"0 






m 

X 

■0 -0 

s 1 

a 3 

a 

Ul 


v> 

to 
O 

to 

Ol 

Vi 

IO 
CO 


Vt 

o 


*■> 
o> 

Vi 
o 

O) 

i- 

Ol 


vt 

o 


vt 

IO 
b> 

CO 

<o 

"o> 

* 

CO 


3 H 

** Ol 

DJ — 
O O 
3 O 
Q. Ul 

oi o 








Vt 

to 
Ul 

o 

Ul 


V) 

o 


vt 

Ol 

o 
"a 

Ol 

-J 


Vt 

o 
o 
o 

o 
o 


2 

o 
o 
o 

o 
o 


3 ° 

** 0) 

CD — 
O O 
3 

a. vi 

CO Z 
D) O 

O "" 








vt 

IO 
Ul 







vt 




v> 

O 


Vt 

KJ 
Ol 

O 

g 


2 H 

3 a 

"* 01 
CD — 

O 

3 O 

a. ui 

CO Z 

01 
<D "" 


CO 

o 
■u 
"to 
o 

-4 


o 


"5 

io 

Ol 

.°» 


o 


*» 
M 

o 

O) 

o 
~co 

Ol 


en 73 
a <t> 
° 3 CD 

co % SL SL 

oi a 3 a) 

• "»S « 

o ° » 
a ° 








vt 

-t 

A 

Vi 

en 

o 


vt 

o 


Vt 

Ol 

"to 
to 
^1 


Vt Vt 

t* ■* 

-J. IO 

en to 

"-»• Ol 

CO CO 

O (-o 


U) 73 
3 CD 

» a 3 » 

° CD =' O 

O B » 






"-4 

IO 
Ol 

"to 

CO 
IO 


V. 




*» ;* 

A IO 

00 u 

CD O) 

w 01 
Ul w 

O OJ 


CO 73 

" 3 cd 

to 5 a a 

Ol Q_ 3 0) 

• ■ 5 

■ <i> 

3. ? 



CO 
-n 
O 
O 
D 

O 



Q. 
O 
fi} 



> 

D 
> 

> 

c 

5" 
■0 

o 



11 



Attachment ill 



Page 1 or 2 
VICE CHANCELLOR OF FINANCE & ADMINISTRATION 

33 COUCH STREET . SAS PRANCI&CC, Ca &4103-I2K • « I 5. 2AI.2Z29 - FAX <15 |4| 2i * 4 



To: Alan Gibson, Budoet Analyst's Office 

From: Peter Goldsteirt)vrce Chancellor Finance & Administration 

Re: Bond Appropriation for the Community College District 

Date: September 3, 1999 

In response to your request I am providing information supporting the 
appropriation of the Community College District's bond proceeds. 

The total amount the Distnct has advanced as of June 30, 1999 is $12,377 
million, or about 60.93% of the $20,313,226 appropriation. These expenditures 
fall into four categories covered by the 1997 ballot measure. The largest portion, 
$9,095 million or about 73.5% of the advanced funds were spent on the 
acquisition of sites for permanent campuses for the Mission and 
Chinatown/North Beach neighborhoods. While the College delayed these 
acquisitions as long as possible, the sellers of the properties refused to wait for 
Proposition D litigation to make its way through the court system. Consequently 
the district faced a difficult decision, issue its own debt in the form of Certificates 
of Participation (COPs) and bear the financial strain of making payments on that 
debt until bonds could be issued, or lose the locations it had identified as sites 
for neighborhoods that can benefit greatly from the College's offerings. Working 
closely with bond counsel, the Board of Trustees made the choice to take the 
actions needed to secure the locations for permanent campuses for the Mission 
and Chinatown/North Beach neighborhoods. 

The second largest category of advanced expenditures is the combination of 
health & safety upgrades and renovation projects. These two combined totaled 
$ 2.4 million or about 19% of the advanced amount. These expenditures were 
sometimes necessary because of serious threats to the well being of the 
College's students and staff as was the case with impending failure of water or 
gas pipes. However, more frequently this spending was needed to ensure that 
the College did not lose the opportunity to leverage additional state capital funds 
for San Francisco. By advancing these funds prior to state-imposed deadlines 
for projects related to items such as windows and roofs, the College was able to 
draw down generally between 50% and 75% in matching funds from the state. 



DOARO OF TRUSTEES 

LAWRENCE WONG, PRESIDENT • DR. ANITA GRIER. VICE PRESIDENT . DR. NATALIE HER C 

ROBERT E BURTON • JAMES HASKELL UAYO. IL . ROOEL E. ROOlS • ROBERT P. VARNI 

DR. PHILIP R. DAY, JR., CHANCELLOR 



12 



Attachment III 
Page 2 of 2 



In two particular cases, by advancing funds the College was able ensure that a 
total of $8.2 million in state funding for capital projects was saved for San 
Francisco. In the first case, by advancing about $950,000 for additional 
classrooms, the College was able to secure more than $4.4 million in state funds 
for remodeling one of its largest classroom facilities. In a second case by 
advancing $225,000 for architectural work, the College was able to secure more 
than $3.8 million in state capital improvement funds for new quarters for its 
electricians, plumbers, carpenters and gardeners. 

The third category of advanced spending related to computer networking issues 
vital to the function of the College. These expenditures totaled about $882,000, 
or about 7.1% of the $12,277 million advanced. This spending was needed to 
bring minimal connectivity to College staff who need access to the College's 
main management information system, and to bring web access to one 
instructional building. It was also necessary to accomplish much of the final 
design work for the larger computer network project that makes up the single 
largest commitment the College made to San Francisco's voters in the June 
1997 election. By advancing $440,000 funds network architecture, the College 
will be able to move forward more quickly toward building the network and 
thereby bringing technology into more of its classrooms. 



The summary of planned expenditures totals $7,935 million, or about 39.07 per 
cent of the $20,313,226 appropriation request. The proposed all fall under the 
categories the College committed to address in the June 1997 ballot measure: 
health and safety, technology infrastructure, renovations, childcare, and ADA 
improvements. The College expects to fully expend the $7,935 million within the 
next eighteen months. 



Thank you for your assistance and do not hesitate to contact me at 241.2229 if 
you need any additional information. 



Cc: Dr. Phillip Day 

Laura OpsaW-Borderon 



TOTAL P. 03 

13 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

October 6, 1999 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

Item 2 -File 99-1737 



Department: 
Item: 



Description: 



Mayor's Office of Housing 

Ordinance amending Section 50.22 of the Administrative 
Code to increase the maximum amount of a loan that may 
be made to a nonprofit performing arts organization 
under the Nonprofit Performing Arts Loan Program from 
$150,000 to $200,000. 

The Nonprofit Performing Arts Loan Program (the "loan 
program") arranges low-cost loans of up to $150,000 to 
nonprofit performing arts organizations for facilities 
maintenance, renovation and capital improvements to 
correct significant building code violations at the facilities 
in which such organizations perform. Loans totaling 
$1,828,898 have been made to date. Attachment I, 
provided by the Mayor's Office of Housing, details 
currently outstanding and past loans made under the loan 
program, including identification of (a) the facility, (b) the 
nonprofit performing arts organization, (c) the location of 
the facility, (d) the loan's purpose, (e) the original 
principal amount and (f) the current status for each loan. 

The proposed ordinance would amend Administrative 
Code Section 50.22 to authorize an increase in the 
maximum loan amount that could be made to a nonprofit 
performing arts organization by $50,000, from $150,000 to 
$200,000. According to Mr. Joe LaTorre of the Mayor's 
Office of Housing, the Office that administers the loan 
program, this change is necessary to provide flexibility to 
make larger loans if justified. According to Mr. LaTorre, 
the maximum loan amount was last increased in 1991 by 
$50,000, from $100,000 to $150,000. Under the 
Administrative Code, the Mayor's Office of Housing is 
responsible for administering the loan program. 

The performing arts organizations that obtain loans 
under the loan program pay three percent interest on the 
loans, for terms of up to 30 years. According to Mr. 
LaTorre, all loans must be repaid. According to Mr. 
LaTorre, there are currently 12 loans outstanding under 
the loan program in an aggregate principal amount of 
$999,173.69. Attachment II, provided by the Mayor's 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

14 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

October 6, 1999 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



Office of Housing, lists each of the 12 loans currently 
outstanding, including (a) the facility, (b) the nonprofit 
performing arts organization, (c) the location of the 
facility, (d) the loan's purpose, and (e) the current 
outstanding principal amount as of September 1, 1999, for 
each loan. 

According to Mr. La Torre, the loan program currently has 
approximately $240,000 available for additional loans. 
According to Mr. LaTorre, the loaned funds are held in a 
Special Fund Revolving Account. As loans are repaid, the 
funds become available for additional loans. 



Comment: 



Recommendation: 



Mr. LaTorre states that, over the term of the loan 
program, there have been two loan defaults, of which the 
City wrote off a total of $157,958. Attachment III is a 
memo from Mr. LaTorre explaining the circumstances 
surrounding the write-off of the two loans. 

Mr. LaTorre states that the loan program was originally 
funded from prior appropriations totaling $1,300,000, 
including $500,000 appropriated from the General Fund 
in April 1984, $500,000 appropriated from the Hotel Tax 
Fund under the Grants for the Arts Program in July 1985 
and $300,000 appropriated from the Hotel Tax Fund 
under the Grants for the Arts Program in July 1986. 
Additionally, Mr. LaTorre indicates that $600,000 more 
has been recently allocated for the loan program from the 
Hotel Tax Fund under the FY 1998-1999 Grants for the 
Arts Program, but such funds have not yet been reflected 
in the available funds for the loan program. Once such 
funds become available to the loan program, total 
appropriations will amount to $1,900,000. 

According to Mr. LaTorre, the loan program has received 
a request from a nonprofit performing arts organization, 
Thick Description, for $200,000 to rehabilitate a 
performance space at 1695 18 th Street. A loan of $150,000 
has already been approved, and the request for the 
additional $50,000 has been held pending approval by the 
Board of Supervisors of this proposed ordinance. 

Approval of the proposed ordinance is a policy matter for 
the Board of Supervisors. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



15 



11V01/99 FRI 10:00 FAI 415 2S2 3140 



MAYOR - HOUSING 



©005 

Attachment 1 



O =5 



EH 

o 

> 


to 

a 
> 


co 

a) 

> 


to 

CO 

> 




Z 


o 

2 


c 
2 


o 

2 


G 
> 


CI 

> 


o 

2 


a 

2 


a 

2 


<o a> 
ID O 
>- >- 


to 
CD 
> 


a 

CD 
> 


> 


en 

a 

> 


- 
a 
a. 


o 

o 

a 


D 


CO 

CO 


o 
5 


co 
a 
O 


CD 

B 


O 

a 
c 


O 

o 
o 


a 
a 
a 


CD 

a 
a 


CD 

C 

q 


o 
S 

3 


a 
o 
c 


o o 

o o 

CO © 


O 

o 

a 


c 
a 

o 


O 

a 
5 


O 

Q 

O 


a 
a 


o 

o 


CM 


in 


co 

o 


a" 
a 


CO* 
CO 


a" 

CO 


a 


a" 

a 




a 


3 


o" 
O 


o" o" 


in 




o 
a 


c 
a 





CJ JS i! 



o £ £ £ 









CD 


tcBt 




3 


3 






2 


« 


















o ■= o 
<d 9 a" 




















o 










CO 




nj 


ra 






"5 


o 








a> 


<D 


co 


CO 


8 


CD 


CD 


CO 


CD 


■ XC 

u — 








CD 


a 


u 


O 


u 




Q-= O. 




u 


U 


o — 






a 


u 


09 

a. 

co 


a. 

CO 


CO 

a 


CD 
C 


0)010 

c c c 
= a a 


CO 
Q. 


CD 

c; 


O! 


CO 

c 
tg 


co 
a. 

U3 


1 = 


(0 i 








re 

a 

10 








"2 


ID 10 ID 






To 






i- en 












2 


2 


CD 


'x 


x 'x X 


o 


'x 


X 


2 


2 


1 X 


2 U 


2 


CD 


"x 


CD 


ro 


"3 


CO 


n 


CD CD S 


(0 


CD 


CD 


CO 


CO 


CO CO 


2 2 

i? 2 




CD 


B 


m 


CD 


CO 


O 


ffl ffi © 


2 


© 


G 


2 


CD 

JZ 


£s 


ra 

CD 


m 

CD 


2 


£ 


~ 


~ 


^ 


I 


5 3 3 


~ 


s 


CO 


** 


** 


** a 


— (0 


S 


c 


a 


— 


3 


= 


:3 






d 












a = 


CO 


CD 




a 


o 





o 


X3 


fl 3 5 


o 


3 


3 


o 


o 


a 5 


O ^3 






3 


c 


2 


2 


2 


2 


CO CO CO 

£ .= -= 


5 


CO 


10 


2 


5 


"CD 5 


•a 5 


CT 


3 

cj- 


2 


^ 


3 


a 


3 


3 


CD CD CD 


3 


3 


CJ 




'5 


"5 "5 


3 "5 


CJ 


o 


a 


3 


a 


CD 


a 


cr 


ccKcn 


tt 


err 


CD 


rn 


co or 


m cr 


< < cr 


CD 


g 


CO 


CO 

cfl 


55 


_: CO 


CD 
3 


© 

CD 
-Si 

CO 




1" 

co 
a 




35 S 






to 


w 




co 


CO 

E 


CO 

c 

Q, 


2 — ■ co c 

E CO r- 5 


CO 
CO 


CO 

ZZ 


CO 


CO 


CO CO 


^ 25 

CO j= 


CO 


T3 
cr 


c; 

CO 


CO 


5 


CO 
-0) 


CO 


CO 


O. O CO 


CO 
2 


s 


3 


"53 


a 


if 


&t 


CM 


CD 
CO 


c 
e 
E 


5 






2 




co to £ 


C 






TD 

eg 


a 


3" ^ 


"O , 




> 




a 


< 


o 


< 


OS 5 


ro 
> 


,_ 


CO 


CO 


,n S 


■"n 


^_ 


CM 


cc 


CO 


CO 


CD 


<* 


CD 


t o -<J- 


© 


cm 


3 


o 


CM O 


co m 


o 


CO 


■w 


CD 


r-- 


CD 


co 


CD 


•W CO CM 


in 


CD 


a 


s 


CM 


CO r- 


lO «- 


r-~ 


o 


CO 


CO 


CN 


-* 


CM 


T 


or i- 


CM 


CM 


O 




r- co 


CM 


■" 


a 





E 75 




2 


CO 


Q 


•o 


v> 9 

D S 


3 


o 


a 


3 
to 


* 4) 


2 


cz 

s 

LU 


CO 

a, 

E 


CD 




^ 


o 


CD 


19 


E < 


1 


TD 


C; 


CO 
CD 


E CD 


9 




O 


JZ 


° £ 


LU 


CO 


o 


1- 


O O 



? -o iz or 

c CD «. 

-j 2 -c — 

s - q id 

is S 5 I 

z = > F 



I JlS ■!«• CM 

O c CJ«^a)c° « 

_~— COCO™— C0LI- r- 

® ■= £ 0£D-r-2< t 
^ CO ETC *. v^c3 

D.J3c0OLiJZ>r-C0O 



16 



10/01/99 FRI 10.no FAI 415 252 3140 



MAYOR - HOI' SING 



©004 

Attachment '. 





„_ 




n O *ID f M 


n 


o 


m o 


□ 


*T 


=1 









co csi cq in p io 


o> 


q 


est q 


q 


CS| 


O 




(fl 




t ■<t c\i o° in t^ 


Is 


d 


d d 


o 


^ 


n 




TO 


a 


m to r>- o i- o 


a 


8. 


CO o 


c: 


N 


r-- 






5 


CD t- «- CN i-_ CO 


i>» 


"l °. 


O 


CO 






© 


















Q 


O 




r»T t-" »-" eo" id d 


-.- 


d 


CN d 


Q 


CO 


=-> 


a 


B 


c> 


»T «- CN •«- CD CO 




5 


•* ifi 


35 


CO 


r> 




CV» «» W> </» U> faO 




<*, 






«r? 


a 










«•> 




V» </» 


«^> 




■J-. 


a 


ro 


















o 


B 



















o < 



OOt-OOOOOOOOO 
oocoooooooooo 
©mwooooooooo 
o" -F-" o" o' d o" d d o' d o" d 
ocNmoooinaimvnino 
.-..-...-.___.-... — — — — 

W» «/» tf> «» f» Vi V) V> if) 



co 



s - w - 1 

cocognsjjwc^coco 



J 3 5 



— js * 



P « ^ 



> 2 t 



1' fcQ. 



o 


CO 
CD 

.e 
t- 


E 
g 

UJ 


■ 

- 

a. 


1 


- 



- 


- 

o 
U 


B 


o 

C 
1 

a 


§ 

D 


m 




5 


CO 


E 


a; 


c 


■ 


CO 


B 


c 




■ 


B 


E 

a 


j£ 


o 


| 


ii 


J= 




OB 


.C 




7^ 


s 


O 


CJ 

5 


1 


c 
o 


ro 

■ 


Q 

B 

£ 


• 


8 


X 


■ 


> 

i 


5 


c 


a 


uj 


CO 


c 
c 

■a 

9 
o 


H 


— 


— 


a 
5 
1 

B 
U 

B 


UJ 


o 


m 


P 


U. 














E 




c 














_ 








o 




c 














B 






(A 





















a 






O 


<u 




i 
| 








o 
E 


CD 

15 


t.1 
o 


c 
I 

a 

■ 


— 


5 
i 


CD 

u 
□ 


CL 

B 

o 
U 

CD 




9 






(0 

u 
c 


F 


E 
P 

UJ 


■ 

m 


< 


■ 




CD 

ro 

CD 


5 


ro 
CO 


■ 
a 


IT 




.* 


c 


5 








a 


C 


C 


r- 


5 
■ 


< 


o 


CJ 


3 


c 


■ 

c 


O 


B 


o 


— 


3 


j^ 


2 


£ 


9 


13 




y 


£ 


■ 


X 


i 


5 




C 


F 


LU 


00 





H 


> 


1- 


o 


UJ 


2 


> 


t- 


oo 



17 




10/01/99 FRI 10:00 FAI 415 252 3140 MAYOR - HOUSING g]00< 

Attachment III 



MEMORANDUM 

Mayor's Office of Housing 

October 1, 1999 

TO: James Edison, Budget Analyst 

FROM: Joe LaTorre 

SUBJECT: Nonprofit Perfo rmin g Arts Loan Program 



You have requested information as to the circumstances under which loans made from the 
Nonprofit Performing Arts Loan Program have been deemed uncollectable. There arc two loans 
on which principal obligations have been written off by the City. The following description is 
from memory, as the pertinent documentation is not held here in the Mayor's Office of Housing, 
and you have requested a prompt response. 

1. San Francisco International Video Festival : This loan of SI 00,000 was made in 1988 for 
the buildout of a theater in a warehouse space in the South of Market. The borrower was 
unable to raise additional funds to complete the project and ceased operation. At that time, 
the program regulations defined acceptable security to be the leasehold interest in the 
property. The City attempted at the time to identify another theater organization who could 
take over the leasehold interest, utilizing the theater space and making lease payments. No 
such organization could be found, and the City's security was eliminated. 

MOH worked with the City Attorney to identify assets which the City could Hen for 
collection, but no such assets were found and the organization itself went out of existence. 
The loan was therefore deemed uncollectable. The NPALP legislation was amended in 1991 
to require the borrowers to provide security other than a leasehold interest in order to receive 
a loan. 

2. Illustrated Stage Company: This loan of $100,000 was made in 1986 for the buildout of 
a theater in the basement of 25 Van Ness Avenue, at that time owned by a private developer. 
The buildout was completed and the organization operated the theater and made loan 
payments for approximately five years. However, when the City acquired the building in 
about 1992, the Real Estate Department determined not to renew the organization's lease. 
Since the City was acquiring title to the improvements financed with the NPALP loan, the 
Illustrated Stage Company's obligation was deemed satisfied by conveyance of title to the 
improvements to the City. At the time of lease termination, $57,958 in outstanding principal 
was forgiven. 

Please call me at 252-3188 if you have any further questions. 



25 Van Ness Avenue, Suite 600 • San Francisco, CA 94102 • 415-252-31 77 • fax 41 5-252-31 40* TTD 41 5-554-3749 

18 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

October 6, 1999 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

Item 3 -File 99-1828 



Department: 
Item: 

Amount: 
Source of Funds: 
Description: 



Comments: 



Office of the Maj^or 

Supplemental appropriation of $200,000 from the 
General Fund Reserve for an emergency gift to the 
City of Taipei to fund earthquake relief efforts. 

$200,000 

General Fund Reserve 

On September 21, 1999, an earthquake measuring 
7.6 on the Richter Scale hit approximately 90 miles 
south of Taipei, Taiwan, collapsing numerous 
buildings, leaving approximately 2,100 persons 
dead, and causing enormous damage throughout 
the country. According to the Office of the Sponsor 
of the proposed ordinance, the City of Taipei, a 
Sister City to San Francisco, gave $100,000 to the 
City of San Francisco for earthquake relief and 
rebuilding efforts after the Loma Prieta 
Earthquake in 1989. The proposed ordinance would 
appropriate $200,000 of General Fund monies to 
the City of Taipei, Taiwan to assist with their 
earthquake relief efforts. 

1. The proposed $200,000 would be coordinated 
with the local Taipei Economic and Cultural Office, 
to ensure that these funds go directly to the City of 
Taipei for earthquake use. According to Ms. 
Melinda Yee Franklin of the Mayor's Office of 
International Trade and Commerce, the Taipei 
Economic and Cultural Office, located at 555 
Montgomery Street in San Francisco, is the local 
diplomatic office for Taipei that is in lieu of a 
consulate, because the United States government 
does not have formal relations with the Taiwan 
government. Ms. Franklin advises that the 
proposed funds are likely to be used for medical 
relief, emergency equipment, technical expertise 
and rebuilding and construction activities, 
although a specific budget or allocation of how the 
funds will be spent is not available. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



19 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

October 6, 1999 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

2. According to the Office of the Sponsor of the 
proposed legislation, in addition to the proposed 
$200,000 gift from the City of San Francisco, 
approximately $4 million of other funds have been 
raised by the local community to be forwarded to 
Taiwan to assist in their earthquake relief efforts. 

3. According to the Office of the sponsor of the 
proposed ordinance, after the Loma Prieta 
Earthquake in 1989, in addition to the City of 
Taipei's $100,000 gift, the City of Osaka gave the 
City of San Francisco $100,000 and the citizens of 
Osaka raised another $400,000 for the City's 
earthquake relief and rebuilding efforts. Ms. 
Franklin reports that the funds that the City 
received directly for earthquake relief after the 
Loma Prieta earthquake in 1989 were deposited 
into the Mayor's Special Earthquake Relief Fund 
and expended primarily for municipal 
infrastructure improvements. The Office of the 
Sponsor also notes that in 1995, after the Kobe 
Earthquake in Japan, the City of San Francisco 
gave $50,000 to San Francisco's Sister City of 
Osaka for their earthquake relief and rebuilding 
efforts. 

4. On September 27, 1999, the Board of Supervisors 
approved a resolution (File 99-1775) extending 
condolences and expressing sympathy and concern 
for the earthquake victims in Taiwan, urging the 
San Francisco community to participate in 
humanitarian aid efforts and directing the Clerk of 
the Board of Supervisors to forward a copy of the 
resolution to the Taipei Economic and Cultural 
Office, the City of Taipei and the Government of 
Taiwan. 

Recommendation: Approval of the proposed ordinance is a policy 

matter for the Board of Supervisors. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

20 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

October 6, 1999 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

Item 4 -File 99-1711 

Department: Department of Real Estate (DRE) 

Department of Public Health (DPH) 

Item: Authorizing the retroactive extension and renewal of 

seven (7) existing leases of real property leased by the 
Department of Public Health. 

Description: Each of the proposed leases is summarized below: 

(1) Location: 298 Monterev Boulevard (entire property) 

Purpose of Lease: Outpatient Mental Health Clinic 

Lessor: John William Powell and Sylvia Cambell Powell 

No. of Sq. Ft. and 

Cost/Month: Approx. 4,025 sq. ft. @ $0.81 /sq. ft./ mo. or S3, 250 

rent/mo. (see Comment No. 1) 

Annual Rent: $39,000 

% Change 

over 1998-99: 14 percent 

Utilities & Janitor 

Provided 

by Lessor: Janitorial only. 

Term of Lease: July 1, 1999 on a month-to-month basis (not to exceed 12 

months) 

Right of Renewal: None 

Source of Funds: 55 percent State Funds and 45 percent General Fund 
monies included in DPffs FY 1999-2000 budget 

(2) Location: 3901-3905 Mission Street (portion of the ground floor) 

Purpose of Lease: Outpatient Mental Health Clinic 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

21 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

October 6, 1999 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

Lessor: Giovacchino and Armando Diodati 

No. ofSq. Ft. and 

Cost/Month: Approx. 2,570 sq. ft. @ $1.20/sq. ft./mo. or $3,084 rent/mo. 

Annual Rent: $37,008 

% Change 

over 1998-99: None 

Utilities & Janitor 

Provided 

by Lessor: Landlord provides all janitorial and utility services. 

Term of Lease: July 1, 1999 through June 30, 2000 

Right of Renewal: None 

Source of Funds: 55 percent State Funds and 45 percent General Fund 
monies included in DPH's FY 1999-2000 budget 



(3) Location: 3911 Mission Street (portions of the ground floor) 

Purpose of Lease: Outpatient Mental Health Clinic 

Lessor: Giovacchino and Armando Diodati 

No. of Sq. Ft. and 

Cost/Month: Approx. 1,500 sq. ft. @ $1.20/sq. ft./mo. or $1,800 rent/mo. 

Annual Rent: $21,600 

% Change 

over 1998-99: None 

Utilities & Janitor 

Provided 

by Lessor: Landlord provides all janitorial and utility duties. 

Term of Lease: July 1, 1999 through June 30, 2000 

Right of Renewal: None 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

22 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

October 6, 1999 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

Source of Funds: 55 percent State Funds and 45 percent General Fund 
monies included in DPH's FY 1999-2000 budget 

******************** 

(4) Location: 111 Potrero Avenue (ground floor) 

Purpose of Lease: Adult Outpatient Mental Health Clinic 

Lessor: 111 Potrero Partnership 

No. of Sq. Ft. and 

Cost/Month: Approx. 6,000 sq. ft. @ the following monthly rates: 

• $1.75/sq. ft./mo. or $10,500 rent/mo. for the three- 
month period from July 1, 1999 through September 30, 
1999. 

• $2.00/sq. ft./mo. or $12,000 rent/mo. for the nine- 
month period from October 1, 1999 through June 30, 
2000. 

Annual Rent: $139,500, including $31,500 for the first three months 

and $108,000 for the subsequent nine months. 

% Change 

over 1998-99: 31 percent for the first three months and an additional 

14.3 percent for the subsequent nine months. 

Utilities & Janitor 

Provided 

by Lessor: Janitorial only. 

Term of Lease: July 1, 1999 on a month-to-month basis (not to exceed 12 

months) 

Right of Renewal: None 

Source of Funds: 55 percent State Funds and 45 percent General Fund 
monies included in DPH's FY 1999-2000 budget 

******************** 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

23 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

October 6, 1999 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



(5) Location: 

Purpose of Lease: 

Lessor: 

No. ofSq. Ft. and 
Cost/Month: 

Annual Rent: 

% Change 
over 1998-99: 

Utilities & Janitor 

Provided 

by Lessor: 

Term of Lease: 



10-20 29th Street (entire property) 
Children's Outpatient Mental Health Clinic 
George, Lois and Lawrence Maisels 

Approx. 2.400 sq. ft. @ $0.62/sq. ft./mo. or $1,500 rent/mo. 
$18,000 

None 

None 

July 1, 1999 on a month-to-month basis (not to exceed 12 
months) 



Right of Renewal: None 
Source of Funds 



55 percent State Funds and 45 percent General Fund 
monies included in DPH's FY 1999-2000 budget 



•?.- ■?: -k *?.* ycjcxf 



(6) Location: 

Purpose of Lease: 

Lessor: 

No. of Sq. Ft. and 
Cost/Month: 

Annual Rent: 

°o Change 
over 1998-99: 



755-61 South Van Ness Avenue (ground floor') 
Adult Outpatient Mental Health Clinic 
AIM TWO 

Approx. 7.101 sq. ft. @ $1.10/sq. ft./mo. or $7,810 rent/mo. 
$93,720 

10 percent 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



24 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

October 6, 1999 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



Utilities & Janitor 

Provided 

by Lessor: None 

Term of Lease: July 1, 1999 on a montb-to-month basis (not to exceed 12 

months) 

Right of Renewal: None 

Source of Funds: 55 percent State Funds and 45 percent General Fund 
monies included in DPH's FY 1999-2000 budget 

(7) Location: 759 South Van Ness Avenue (entire second floor) 

Purpose of Lease: Children's Outpatient Mental Health Clinic 

Lessor: AIM TWO 

No. of Sq. Ft. and 

Cost/Month: Approx. 6,445 sq. ft. @ $1.40/sq. ft. /mo. or $9,055 rent/mo. 

Annual Rent: $108,660 

% Change 

over 1998-99: 12 percent 

Utilities & Janitor 

Provided 

by Lessor: None 

Term of Lease: July 1, 1999 on a month-to-month basis (not to exceed 12 

months) 

Right of Renewal: None 

Source of Funds: 55 percent State Funds and 45 percent General Fund 
monies included in DPH's FY 1999-2000 budget 

■kick***************** 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

25 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

October 6, 1999 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

Comments: 1. Mr. Steve Alms of the Department of Real Estate 

(DRE) advises that the proposed resolution incorrectly 
states that the rental rate for Lease No. 1 at 298 
Monterey Boulevard is $2,900 per month. Mr. Alms 
states that the correct rate is $3,250 per month. 
Therefore, the proposed resolution should be amended to 
state that the rental rate for Lease No. 1 at 298 Monterey 
Boulevard is $3,250 per month, instead of $2,900 per 
month. 

2. According to Mr. Alms: Lease #1 at 298 Monterey 
Boulevard and Lease #5 at 10-20 29 th Street have been 
negotiated on a month-to-month basis because the DPH 
intends to consolidate the DPH Outpatient Mental Health 
Clinic at 298 Monterey Street and the DPH Children's 
Outpatient Mental Health Clinic at 10-20 29 th Street into 
one single location. Lease #4 at 111 Potrero Avenue and 
Lease #6 at 755-61 South Van Ness Avenue have been 
negotiated on a month-to-month basis because, at the 
request of the DPH, the DRE is currently searching for 
one single location to consolidate the DPH Adult 
Outpatient Mental Health Clinics currently located at the 
two separate sites. Lease #7 at 759 South Van Ness 
Avenue has been negotiated on a month-to-month basis 
because the DPH may require the space currently 
occupied by the DPH Children's Outpatient Mental 
Health Clinic at that site to consolidate the DPH Adult 
Outpatient Mental Health Clinics under Lease #4 at 111 
Potrero Avenue and Lease #6 at 755-61 South Van Ness 
Avenue. The DPH Children's Outpatient Mental Health 
Clinic at 759 South Van Ness Avenue would then be 
relocated to a yet unidentified location in the City. 

3. The attached memo, provided by Mr. Alms, explains 
the reason for the various rental increases for the subject 
leases. Mr. Alms advises that the increase in rent over 
the prior year for Lease #7 at 759 South Van Ness Avenue 
is approximately 12 percent, rather than 10 percent, as 
shown in the attachment. 

4. Mr. Alms reports that all of the proposed rental rates 
reflect fair market value. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

26 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

October 6, 1999 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

Recommendations: 1. In accordance with Comment No. 1 above, amend the 

proposed resolution to state that the rental rate for Lease 
No. 1 at 298 Monterey Boulevard is $3,250 per month, 
instead of S2.900 per month. 

2. Approve the proposed resolution as amended. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

27 



SEP-30-1999 11=17 CCSF REAL ESTATE DEPT 415 552 9216 P. 02/03 

City and County of San Francisco Real Estate Department 

Offlca of tr.e 
Director of Property 



Attachment 
Page 1 of 2 
MEMORANDUM 




September 30, 1999 



TO: Harvey Rose 

Budget Analyst 



FROM: Steve Alms 

Senior Real Property Officer 
554-9865 



SUBJECT: Public Health Lease Renewals 
Fiscal Year 1999/2000 



The following explanations are provided in response to your questions regarding the various 
Public Health lease renewals. 

298 Monterey Boulevard (Item #1) 

The increase in rent from S2.850.00 to S3, 250. 00 per month represents an increase of 
approximately 14% over the prior year. The prior rent has been in effect since July 1997. The 
market continues to change dramatically. Tne rent negotiated with the landlord for fiscal vear 
1999/2000 is at or beiow market rate, and the increase is nominal when compared to the change 
in the market in the past two years. 

Ill Pbtrero Avenue (Item #4) 

The July 1, 1999 increase in rent from S8.000.00 to S 10,500. CO per month represents an increase 
of approximately 31% over the prior year. In addition, the rent is scheduled to increase again 
effective October 1, 1999 to S12.COO.00 per month (S2.00 per square foot per month), 
representing an additional increase of approximately 14%. The 1998/99 rent was beiow market. 
In addition, as noted in out cover letter of September 21, 19S9, the rent increase reflects the 
significant change currently taking place in the market. The change in the market continues to be 
driven by the much-publicized demand for office space to house the multi-media industry. Tne 
stepped escalation was negotiated to reduce the immediate impact on the Department of Pubiic 
Health budget, and the S2.00 per square foot rate negotiated with the landlord is market rate rent. 



H:\49s495S*)rI99«000 asao * tron.aoc 

S9«-M00 

FAX: SS2-92-IS 25 V«n Nm Avwnum. Sutte 400 S« FtmciKO. W10 



28 



SEP-30-1S89 11: 17 CCSF REAL ESTATE DE?T 415 552 S21S P. 03/03 

Attachment 
Page 2 of 2 



755-61 South Van Ness Avenue (Item #6) 

The increase in rent from S7, 100.00 to S7, 8 10.00 per month represents an increase of 
approximately 10% over the prior year. As noted above, the market has changed dramatically. 
The market rate rent negotiated- with the landlord for fiscal year 1999/2000 is a nominal change 
compared to the change in the market. 

759 South Van Ness Avenue (Item #7) 

The increase in rent from S2.Q56.25 to S9,055.00 per month represents an increase of 
app roximat ely 10% over the prior year. As noted above, the market has changwi dramatically. 
The market rate reztt negotiated with the landlord for fiscal year 1999/2000 is a no min al ftHarsg? 

co mpar ed to the change in the aarkr~ 

At the request of the Department of Public Health, the Real Estate Division is attempting to 
relocate the facilities identified as Items 4, 5 and 6, inchjdmg a consolidation of items 4 and 6 to a 
single location. The other items listed could be relocated as part of the rdocafion/consolidation 
effort, depending on the location and size of available new facilities. In the mean time, it is 
prudent to maintain month-to-month agreements in order to maximize the City's ability to react in 
the current market. 

If there are other questions regarding the proposed renewals, please call me at 554-9865. 



H--tW93-N 1999- 2300 mm to ira&Joo 

T0TPL P. 03 

29 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

October 6, 1999 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



Item 5 -File 99-1712 

Department: 

Item: 



Amount: 
Source of Funds: 

Description: 



Administrative Services 

Resolution authorizing the Director of Administrative 
Services to execute amendments to an agreement, related 
to the Moscone Center Expansion Project, dated May 16, 
1997, increasing the amount of the agreement by 
$4,500,000, from $9,526,326.38 to $14,026,326.38. 

$4,500,000 

Previously appropriated FY 1999-2000 Hotel Tax funds in 
the Department of Administrative Services - Moscone 
Center Expansion Project budget. 

The proposed resolution would authorize the Director of 
Administrative Services to enter into two or more 
amendments to an existing contract with Gensler/Michael 
Willis & Associates/Kwan Henmi Architects for 
architectural and engineering design and related services 
in connection with the new Moscone Center Expansion 
Project in an amount not to exceed $4,500,000, increasing 
the amount of the agreement from $9,526,326,38 to 
$14,026,326.38. Section 9.118 of the City Charter 
requires that all contracts in excess of $10 million must be 
approved by the Board of Supervisors. The funds for the 
proposed modifications will come from Hotel Tax fund 
monies previously appropriated by the Board of 
Supervisors for the Moscone Center Expansion Project in 
the FY 1999-2000 budget. 

In March of 1996, San Francisco voters approved a ballot 
measure authorizing the issuance of Lease Revenue 
Bonds, in an amount not to exceed $157.5 million, for the 
development of a new 240,000 square-foot separate 
facility at 860 Howard Street to provide additional 
convention meeting and exhibit space to supplement the 
Moscone Convention Center. The existing Moscone 
Convention Center at 747 Howard Street, which was 
expanded by 300,000 square feet in 1992 and 1993, now 
encompasses a total of 600,000 square feet in convention 
meeting and exhibit space. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



30 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

October 6, 1999 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



On May 16, 1997, the Director of Administrative Services 
entered into a contract with Gensler/Michael Willis <&: 
Associates/Kwan Henmi Architects for architectural and 
engineering design and related services for the new 
Moscone Center Expansion Project in the amount of 
S9,526, 326.38. According to Mr. Leonard Tom, Director of 
Finance for the Moscone Center Expansion Project, 
managed by the Department of Administrative Services, 
the contract was awarded under a competitive request for 
proposal process. 

According to Mr. Tom, the basic scope of the Moscone 
Center Expansion Project was enlarged in September of 
1997, necessitating the additional architectural and 
engineering design work. The net useable floor area was 
increased by 60,000 square feet, from 240,000 to 300,000 
square feet, additional land purchases were authorized, 
the project's construction budget only was increased from 
$144,000,000 to $191,000,000 and the project completion 
date was extended one year to February of 2003. The 
total estimated costs of the Moscone Center Expansion 
Project, construction, design and other costs, originally 
$195,500,000 in May 1997 and later increased to 
$244,100,000 in September 1997, will be financed from 
Lease Revenue Bond proceeds and Hotel Tax revenues. 
Attachment I, provided by the Moscone Center Expansion 
Project, details (a) all sources of funds for the Moscone 
Center Expansion Project, (b) all projected costs, and (c) 
an explanation as to why the proposed additional 
architectural and engineering design and related services, 
of up to $4,500,000, should not be obtained through a 
competitive request for proposal process. 

Mr. Tom states that additional architectural and 
engineering design and related services, of up to 
$4,500,000, which is the subject of this request, are 
necessary for the enlarged project, and that therefore the 
contract with Gensler/Michael Willis &. Associates/Kwan 
Henmi Architects must be amended to reflect the 
additional required work. Attachment II, provided by the 
Moscone Center Expansion Project, details a proposed 
contract modification in the amount of $3,583,596 and the 
additional services that would be provided. Attachment 
III is a memo from Mr. Tom that details additional 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

31 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

October 6, 1999 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



anticipated contract requirements of up to $916,404. 
Therefore, the total required contract amendments would 
not exceed $4,500,000 ($3,583,596 plus $916,404). 



Recommendation: Approve the proposed resolution. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

32 



City and County of San Francisco 




Attachment I 
Moscone Center Expansion Project 

Willie Lewis Brown, Jr., Mayor 

Mart: Primeau, Director of Public Works 

Ray Fong, Project Manager 



MEMORANDUM 



Sept. 30, 1999 

James Edison, Budget Analyst 

Leonard Tom^-T 



DT: 
TO: 
FM: 
RE: Moscone Expansion Project - Follow Up Responses 

Per your request, following is a comparison of the hard and soft costs for construction of the 
Moscone Center Expansion Project between May 1997 (start of A&£ contract) and current 



Category 

Building Demolition/Construction Contracts /FF&E 

Construction Contingency 

Offsite Infrastructure 

Architecture/Construction Management 

Consultants 

City Departments, Permits, Fees, Art Projects 

Total 

FUNDING SOURCES 

Revenue Bonds (available for construction) 
Hotel Tax Revenue (post 8 '96) 
Convention Facilities Fund Balance 

Total 



May 1997 

SI 44.0 million 
S 14.4 million 
S 3.4 million 
S 22.2 million 
S 1.2 million 
S 10.3 million 

SI 95.5 million 



SI 150 million 
S 67.0 million 
S 13.5 million 

S 195.5 million 



Current 

SI 91.0 million 
$ 12.8 million 
S 2.8 million 
S 26.3 million 
S 0.7 million 
S 11.1 million 

S244.7 million 



SI 15.0 million 
S 81.3 million 
S 48.4 million 

S244.7 million 



In response to your question why we are not putting this additional work out to competitive 
bidding, the majority of our request is for work (construction administration) that was always 
contemplated in the architect's basic responsibility to take a project from preliminary design to 
final completion. We are supplementing the original certified value to bring on that phase of the 
work at this time. It would not be time efficient or cost effective to stop work and solicit 
proposals from new architectural teams to modify the building design. Professional liability 
requirements would not allow the consecutive mixture of different teams on the same project. 



Cc: 



Jack Moerschbaecher 
RF/JO/BH 



Ltom/MCEP Accounting/ AE Board Resolution 



99 Grove Street #204 San Francisco, CA 94102 - Telephone (415) 97S-5901 ?M (415) 97S-5913 



33 



Pag-e 1 oj 



ATTACHMENT A 



Additional Services 

Architect shall provide additional services for the construction administration phase of 
the project. The construction administration phase work shall be performed in 
accordance with the applicable provisions set forth in the Agreement, dated May 16, 
1997. This work includes, but is not limited to, assistance during contract bidding and 
award, review of construction issues arising during performance of the construction 
contracts, responding to all information requests made by the general contractors), 
review and approval of all shop drawings and all other submittals prepared by the general 
contractors). Additional cost of this work is not to exceed S3.331.943.00 without 
specific written amendment to this contract executed by the City. Tne estimated time 
frame for this work is approximately three and a half years, from September 1999 
through February 2003. 

The Architect shall provide additional air quality research to ensure proper design of 
internal ventilation systems serving the loading areas in the basement of the new 
building. Total cost of this research is not to exceed Sl.653.00 without specific written 
authorization by the City. 

The Architect shall reimburse the City, with interest, for the advanced payment for 
project insurance premiums in the amount of S250.000.00 . This payment was made 
because the City required a project specific insurance policy for the project, which 
entailed a lump sum payment for the premiums by the Architect. For normal insurance 
the Architect would have paid annual premiums for the life of the project. 



34 



1001'99 FRI 00:33 F.U U5 978 5913 



moscone eip projn proj Attachment^ II 
Page 2 of 2 



i£oo: 



Moscone Center Expansion Project 

A&E Construction Administration Cost Projection 

Gensier/Michael Willis/Kwan Henmi Joint Venture 



9,30/99 



Position 



FTE 



Hours/Mo. 



siliing 
Rates 



Cost/Month 



Project Director 
Senior Arcnrtect(s) 
Project Administrator 
Subconsultants 



0.5 
1.5 
1.0 

as needed 



es 

255 

170 

-.25 



'.50 S 

1C5 S 

67 S 

1C5 S 



13,500 
25,775 
1 1 ,290 
14.175 



Contraction Admin, 
period to last 45 months 
(10/99-6/03) 



Total fees>montn S 65.940 

P.eimoursaDies (ave.) S 8.103 

Monthly Average Cost S 74.043 

X rf months 45 

Budgeted Expense S 2.231.944 



i^m/mossane 3/A4E ConL-act Aam. 



35 




City and County of San Francisco Moscone Center Expansion Project 

^c^J^. Willie Lewis Brown, Jr., Mayor 

Mark Primeau, Director of Public Works 
Ray Fong, Project Manager 

MEMORANDUM 

DT: Sept. 30, 1999 

TO: James Edison 

FM: Leonard Tom ^ ' 

RE: File 991712 - MCEP Contract Mod. - Additional Modification Requests 

The Moscone Expansion Project has already come to agreement on $3,583,596 worth of contract 
modifications with the joint venture. Approximately $3 million of that amount is for the 
construction administration phase of work that was originally anticipated, but not certified at the 
start of the contract work. 

Following is a list of contract modification requests for additional services, which are currently 
being negotiated between the City and the joint venture and we expect to certify in the very near 
future. We are requesting the authority to make these changes at this time to reduce the need to 
go back repeatedly to the Board for an item by item approval. 

Additional seismic testing of structural joints SI 14.5 K 

Electrical/life safety commissioning S101 .9 K 

Friction dampers study/design S 1 46.4 K 

Basement cafeteria revisions $ 11.5K 

Building HV AC commissioning $127.2 K 

Additional civil services $ 39.1 K 

Additional cooling tower enclosure effort $ 10.7 K 

Interior Art Project additional work $ 78.4 K 

Exterior Art Project additional work $125.2 K 

Total Additional Requests $ 754 .9 K 



We are proposing an additional reserve of $161,504 (to round our current request to the Board to 
$4,500,000) for future consultation on furnishings, fixtures and equipment (FF&.E), which will 
need to be coordinated with design to make the new building operational. This reserve 
represents one percent of the contract value and is conservative, given the si2e and complexity of 
the project 

Please call me at 978-5905 with any other questions you might have. 

Cc: RF/JO 

Jack Moerschbaecher 

Ltom/MCEP Accounting/AE Board Resolution 



99 Grove Street #204 San Francisco, CA 94102 - Telephone (415) 978-5901 Fax (415) 978-5913 

36 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

October 6, 1999 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

Item 6 -File 1720 



Department: 
Item: 

Amount: 
Source of Funds: 

Description: 



Airport 

Department of Real Estate (DRE) 

Resolution authorizing the acquisition of 13 noise 
easements for properties in unincorporated San Mateo 
County as part of the County of San Mateo's Aircraft 
Noise Insulation Program. 

$220,472 



Fiscal Year 1999-2000 Airport budget 
Airport Capital Projects 

Commercial Paper Fund 
Total 



$ 77,196 

143.276 
$220,472 



In 1992, the Airport entered into a Memorandum of 
Understanding (MOU) with neighboring local 
governments, in which the Airport provides funds to local 
governments to pay for the cost of insulating private 
residences against Airport noise. The Airport has 
committed up to $120,000,000 to provide funds to local 
governments who have signed the MOU with the Airport. 
In addition, the Airport committed to continue 
participation in the noise insulation program, in which 
the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) provides 80 
percent matching funds and the Airport provides 20 
percent matching funds, to insulate remaining dwelling 
units and other noise-sensitive land uses, such as 
churches and schools. 

As part of the agreement to provide funds to cover the 
costs of insulating private residences and other facilities 
against Airport noise, the Airport obtains a Grant of 
Easement from the property owner, permitting the 
Airport to conduct operations which would cause noise 
and vibration on the private property. 

Approval of the proposed resolution would authorize the 
Airport to acquire 13 Grants of Easement in an 
unincorporated portion of San Mateo County. The total 
cost to the Airport to acquire the easements would be 20 
percent of the noise insulation costs, or $220,472. The 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



37 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

October 6, 1999 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



Comments: 



Recommendation: 



remaining 80 percent of the costs, or $881,886, has been 
paid by the FAA to San Mateo County, for a total project 
cost of $1,102,358 ($220,472, plus $881,472). 

1. According to Ms. Sally Osaki of the Airport, 13 Grants 
of Easement have been acquired from property owners, 
consisting of 9 dwelling units and 4 churches and will 
remain in effect for a period of 20 years. 

2. Ms. Osaki states that the City's cost in acquiring the 
Grants of Easement are 20 percent of the total cost to 
insulate the 9 dwelling units and 4 churches to reduce 
noise decibels to acceptable levels. Because the affected 
dwelling units and churches are in an unincorporated 
portion of San Mateo County, the County received 80 
percent of the total construction cost in grant funds from 
the FAA. Ms. Osaki advises that the total cost to the 
Airport would not exceed $220,472. According to Ms. 
Osaki, of the $220,472 in matching funds provided by the 
Airport, $77,196 would come from the FY 1999-2000 
Airport budget, and $143,276 would come from the 
Airport Capital Projects Commercial Paper Fund, 
previously appropriated for the purpose of insulating 
homes in San Mateo County against Airport noise. 

Approve the proposed resolution. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

38 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

October 6, 1999 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



Item 7 -File 99-1752 

Department: 

Item: 



Amount: 
Source of Funds: 

Description: 



Port 



Hearing requesting the release of reserves in the amount 
of $260,000 to fund dredging and disposal work to be 
performed at Hyde Street Harbor. 

$260,000 

Loan proceeds from the California Department of Boating 
and Waterways. 

In May of 1988 the Board of Supervisors approved the 
Port's request to apply for and accept loan funds in the 
amount of $3,000,000 from the California Department of 
Boating and Waterways to fund the Hyde Street Fishing 
Harbor Project (Resolution 374-88). In April of 1994 the 
Board of Supervisors approved a resolution to increase 
the amount of the loan by $500,000, to a total loan 
amount of $3,500,000 ( Resolution 350-94). In January of 
1998, the Board of Supervisors appropriated the 
$3,500,000 in loan funds. Of the $3,500,000 appropriated, 
$3,229,700 was placed on reserve, pending submission of 
budget details (Ordinance No. 40-98). 

The Hyde Street Fishing Harbor Project, 'which is 
presently estimated to cost $3,863,500, was approved in 
1988 as part of a project to revitalize commercial fishing 
at Fisherman's Wharf. The Hyde Street Fishing Harbor 
Project consists of a waterside vessel berthing facility and 
landside improvements. In addition, the project would 
include spill containment equipment, a leak detection 
system, a vessel sewage pump-out station, an oily waste 
disposal facility, a public restroom, a security gate, 
parking for approximately 45 vehicles, and approximately 
3,000 square feet of public access at the foot of Pier 45. 
The Port Commission approved the Environmental 
Impact Report (EIR) for the project in December of 1996. 

In June of 1999, three construction bids for the Hyde 
Street Fishing Harbor Project were received by the Port, 
ranging from $5,017,740 to $6,096,089, all of which 
exceeded the $4,181,482 in funds available for the project 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



39 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

October 6, 1999 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

from the California Department of Boating and 
Waterways loan ($3,266,982), the Port Capital Plan 
($473,000), the California Department of Boating and 
Waterways Vessel Pump-out Grant ($41,500), and the 
California Department of Boating and Waterways Grant 
($400,000). As explained in the Attachment provided by 
Ms. Nita Mizushima of the Port, the Port has now 
proposed that the project be separated into two 
subprojects, landside improvements and marine 
improvements, to achieve an anticipated reduction in 
costs by awarding two separate contracts to contractors 
with different expertise. 

As part of the marine improvements, the Port proposes 
that the dredging work for this project be done under an 
existing $1,770,565 contract with Dutra Dredging 
Company. The Port Commission has approved a 
modification to the contract with Dutra Dredging to add 
dredging of Hyde Street Harbor and disposal of material 
from that dredging. 

The proposed release of reserved funds would authorize 
the Port to expend $260,000 for dredging and disposal 
work at the Hyde Street Harbor as part of the Hyde 
Street Fishing Harbor Project. 

Budget: The summary budget for the proposed release of reserved 

funds is as follows: 

Disposal of 5,100 cubic yards at 

Alcatraz @ $14.25 per cubic yard $ 72,675 
Disposal of 2,400 cubic yards at 

other sites @ $56.50 per cubic yard 135,600 

Additional costs to mobilize site 15,000 

Subtotal $223,275 

15 percent contingency $ 33,491 
Additional costs to load dredged 

materials into truck 3,500 

Subtotal $ 36,991 

Total $260,266 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

40 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

October 6, 1999 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



The Attachment, provided by the Port, also contains 
additional budget details and explanations for this 
budget. 



Comments: 



Recommendation: 



According to Ms. Nita Mizushima of the Port, the original 
contract in the amount of $1,770,565 with Dutra 
Dredging, funded by the Port Capital Budget, was 
awarded in October of 1998 after a competitive bid 
process. The Port proposes to authorize Dutra Dredging 
Company to perform additional dredging work needed for 
the Hyde Street Fishing Harbor under the existing 
contract with Dutra Dredging Company, rather than 
issuing another invitation for bids, because the Army 
Corps of Engineers requires the Port to complete such 
dredging work by November 30, 1999. The Port expects 
the Army Corps of Engineers to reduce or prohibit 
dredging work in the Bay prior to the herring season, 
from December of 1999 through March of 2000. Ms. 
Mizushima states that the EIR report has been approved 
and the necessary permits have been obtained to perform 
the dredging work. 

Approve the proposed release of reserved funds. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



41 



Attachment 
Page 1 of 5 



PORT OF SAN FRANCISCO 
MEMORANDUM 



To: Severin Campbell 

From: Nita Mizushima 

Date: September 30, 1999 

Subject: Hyde Street Harbor Project, Contract 2656 

Request for Release of Funds - Supporting Data 



This memo is in response to your questions regarding Hyde Street Harbor (HSH). My responses 
are as follows and as attached: 

1. What is the present cost estimate for HSH? And what was the range of bids? 

The project had recently been advertised for bids. The range of bids were as follows: 

Peak Engineering S5 ,0 1 7,740 

McK.ee Corp 55,060,447 

Valentine S6.096,089 

Engineer's Estimate $3,863,500 
(The bids were rejectrd as '.he available funding was insufficient.) 

The Port is currency performing Value Engineering on the project and re-packaging with 
the following goals in mind: 

• Maintain project momentum and commitment to community 

• Save costs by revising the scope of the project while still meeting our 
commitment to the community. 

The sources of funding is as follows: 

Fund Type Funds Available for 

Construction 

Cal Boating Loan (on reserve,! S3, 266.982 

Port Capital Plan $ 473.000 

Cal Boating Vessel Pump out grant S 4 1 .500 

Cal Boating Grant S ~00 ? 000 

Total $4, 181,482 

2. What is the estimated cost of the landside project vs marine side project if it is split 
into 2 parts? 



F:\TcmplatesvmemoHSHdoc 
8/2 "d 42 3AIin03x:3 JS JO laOd Wd92:90 66. BE =2E 



Attachment 
Page 2 of 5 



The split between the two "scopes" of the project on the original project was 
approximately 50/50. The Port anticipates that the a costs savings will result with the 
following actions: 

• Split the contract to marine vs landside. In typical contracts, the prime contractor has 
the expertise in the major portion of the work and brings in subconsultants for other 
portions. With each subconsultant, there is additional mark-up of overhead and 
profit By eliminating the additional tier on 50% of the work, it is hoped that we can 
reduce the markup applied. 

• Separate dredging scope. The dredging of the marina is necessary today due to the 
potential changes in the permit requirements in the upcoming Herring season. With 
the decision to reject all bids, it was prudent to extract the dredging component and 
find a feasible, more timely alternative. The existing dredging contract was a 
competitive alternative as shown on the comparison (attached). 

• Value Engineering. Once the decision to reject all bids was made, we found an 
opportunity to value engineer the project and sas'e scope. We plan to use an existing 
adjacent structure to house some of the facilities that were originally shown to be 
housed in a new structure to be built as part of the project. The existing facility was 
not previously available to us during the earlier part of the design. 

• Split/phase work. Once it was determined that modifications to the landside portion 
of the project was needed, the Port felt that it was- even more important to divide the 
work into a marine and landside package in order to keep the momentum of the 
project going and to demonstrate to the community that we were making progress on 
the work. 

3. Amount of the existing Dntra Contract? Funding source? Other bids? 

• Existing Dutra contract is 1,770,565. 

• The funding is Port Capital. 

• One other bid was received on the original contract from Manson. Total bid was 
63% higher. 

4. Dredging costs and comparison: 

I have attached a comparison of the rates bid for the Hyde Street Harbor dredging in 
June. 

5. Range of rates for upland disposal? 

The rate will no longer vary and will be a fixed S56.50. Since the original memo was 
written, the materials to be dredged have been further tested and determined to be 
suitable for a Class III landfill. Previously, we were unsure as to whether the site would 
need to be a class II or class III. The type of landfill was greatly impacting the price. At 
this point, the contractor has committed to dispose of the materials at the $56.50 
negotiated. Dumping at Alcatraz is permitted for a limited quantity as well as material 
content. Materials unsuitable for in-bay disposal are not necessarily considered as class 

II landfill materials (not hazardous or toxic) but are tested to verify appropriate disposal 
sites. 

6. The mobilization costs for the Hyde Street Harbor are due to the following: 

• They had to mobilize two dump scows from southern California and re-outfit the 
dumps scows to comply with permit restrictions. 

F:\Templares\memoHSH.doc 
8/E'd Z,3 3AIin33X3 JS JO 180d Wd92:90 66, BE d3S 



Attachment 
Page 3 of 5 



• They also had to set up a small derrick barge DB3 to perform the initial dredging 
operations as their main dredge, DB24, was committed to other work. Then the DB3 
and the dump scows had to be towed to the San Francisco dredge site. 

At this time, the demand for dredging is extremely high (due to season as well as other 
dredging projects in the Bay Area). The dredging contractor has had to also pull labor 
from as Florida to man the project Tne mobilization costs of SI 5,000 cover these costs. 
Additionally, please note the following comparison of mobilization costs: 

Contract Mobilization Costs as % of 
Contract 

Dutra (Original Contract) 9 8% 

Hyde Street Harbor 7.2% 

How was the contingency of 15% determined? 

For typical construction contracts, a contingency of 10% is used. However, with 
dredging and other "underground/water" work, it is sometimes more difficult to 
determine the exact quantities. With dredging, the area to be dredged is constantly 
shifting over time due to sediments being carried by wave action, etc. A hydrographic 
survey will be performed immediately prior to the dredging operation and another will be 
taken immediately after the dredging to determine the difference in the quantities 
removed. For this reason, we are using a higher than typical contingency. 

What is the breakdown the additional cost for Port loading? 

Tne cost of S3, 500 was estimated for the rental of a loader/backhoe to facilitate the 
loading of the equipment. This is only an estimate based upon the anticipated cubic yards 
of material, the duration of the loading operation and need for the equipment and the 
availability of the rental equipment. 



I hope that this information is helpful. Please letme know if you have any further questions. I am 
under the assumption that this memo will suffice to use as supplementary information for the 
report. If not, please let me know so that I may provide the information in a different format. 

I apologize for the delay in providing you this information. 



F:\TemplMes\nier7.oKSH. doc 
8/t, ' d 2AI1TCGX3 JS JO idOd U±LZ:<=Q 66. BE =25 



44 



Attachment 
Page 4 of 5 



Hyde Street Harbor 
Dredging 

Per Change Order 3: 



14-Sep-99 
NCM 



Provide dredging and disposal of sediments at Hyde Steet Harbor in accordance with drawing 
#HYDE98.DWG dated 14 Jury 99 (2 sheets) and applicable provisions of Contract No. 2656. 

A. Approximately 5, 100 cy to be disposed at Alcatraz at a cost of $14.25 per cy. 

B. Approximately 2,400 cy to be disposed upland at a cost of $56.50 per cy. 

C. Additional cost to mobilize to this site. 

Total: 

15% contingency due to variations in quantity and location of potential disposal site: 

Additional costs due to Port loading materials into trucks after matenal drying at Pier 94: 

Grand Total: 



572.675.00 

135,600.00 

15,000.00 

$223,275.00 

$33,491 

$3,500 

$260,266.25 



Projected MBE/WBE participation will be in trucking (approx. 60% of the upland disposal costs): S 61,360.00 
% of change order of anticipated MBEAVBE participation: 31 % 



Contract Goals: 




MBE 


2% 


WBE 


1% 



8/3 "d 



A5 



3A lira 3X3 JS JO IdOd Wd82:90 66. 0E d3S 



SEP 30 '99 06:27R1 PORT OF SF EXECUTIVE 



Attachment 
Page 5 of 5 



£,C'U 




o 


k [ » ,2. 




I I 


^ 2 Q 




,io 


K sB 




ft 


!5" -•! 




|J0 


|g 




1 »_ 


u a 








-- 






■ 
n 
8 
















.- - CO 

c 




. 










1 


m 


' 3 








w 








We 




5* j 


M (/I 






X. -» 


1 




o,o 







o IS 




1 


«••»!_ 








m 








o 








(3 

3' 


r. 




CB 


ro a> 


i 




o o — 






§§ ; « 










,*• **!s 








r> 










l 71 










i a 










i " 








*. 


- O 








P O 






o bU 






o 


o r 




i 


w 


< 












J 










M 


-» =. 










|S&8 






o © 




_LL 








> 




| 








< 










03 
X 


j 

9 








VI Vt 


— 








(i 






K) CJ 


B 






o iv 








O U) 






••Mo 

8 


3 




III ^3 


fi 


C 1 


a u ~ 


en 


i 


6> Lj 5 


5 


o| o» a. 


B 




•*l 


-1 

a 




S -'^w 


| 




^ tfi> O) q_ 


— 






§ '» o 5" 


o 






o - _-. i 


o 






o ° ° 


^ 






° o ol 








<* <H|M 


Q 










r 




rn 




pa yi.jol £ 






ro a> a ol 


r* 




S ON i 




o 




U1 O'Uli 




oobl 






O Ol o 






«* ** U» — 






w- o»L ° 






p> I — > 1 =* 










NIQ S t 






tni o o>' 3 






o 1 '© © S 














J 



46 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

October 6, 1999 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

Item 8 - File 99-1761 



Department: 
Item: 



Services to be 
Performed: 



Juvenile Probation 

Resolution concurring with the Controller's certification 
that intake and shelter services to status offenders can 
continue to be practically performed by a private 
contractor at a lower cost than if work were performed by 
City and County employees. 



Shelter and intake services to status offenders 



Description: 



The Juvenile Probation Department first entered into a 
contract with Huckleberry Youth Programs (formerly 
known as Youth Advocates, Inc.) in 1984 to provide a 
community-based central receiving facility for status 
offenders. Status offenders are youth who have run away 
from home, have a history of truancy, or are in other ways 
out of their parents' control, but who are not in the 
criminal justice system. Prior to the contract with 
Huckleberry Youth Programs to provide the community- 
based central receiving facility, status offenders were 
retained in Juvenile Hall. 



In 1989 the Juvenile Probation Department expanded the 
services provided by the contract with Huckleberry Youth 
Programs to include intake and shelter services for status 
offenders. Huckleberry Youth Programs currently 
provides a 24 hour short-stay shelter and needs 
assessment for youth, with the goal of reuniting youth 
with their family or providing appropriate longer-term 
placement. 

Charter Section 10.104 provides that the City may 
contract with private firms for services which can be 
practically performed for a lower cost than similar work 
by City and County employees. 

The Controller has determined that contracting for the 
shelter and intake services for status youth offenders for 
FY 1999-2000 would result in estimated savings as 
follows: 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



47 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

October 6, 1999 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

Lowest Highest 

Salary Salary 

Citv-Operated Service Costs Step Step 

Salaries $ 782,778 $ 971,912 

Fringe benefits 218.663 248.394 

Total $1,001,441 $1,220,306 

Contractual Service Cost* 668.755 689.618 

Estimated Savings $ 332,686 $ 530,688 

*Includes (a) the current contractor's cost of $622,710 and (b) 
1.0 FTE 8442 Senior Probation Officer in the Juvenile Probation 
Department, at a Step I annual cost of $46,045, totaling 
$668,755 ($622,710 plus $46,045) and a Step 5 annual cost of 
$66,908, totaling $689,618 ($622,710 plus $66,908) to monitor 
the contract. 

Comments: 1. Ms. Cheyenne Bell of the Juvenile Probation 

Department reports that the Department first entered 
into a contract with Huckleberry Youth Programs, Inc. in 
1984 to provide a central receiving facility for status 
offenders, and that the contract with Huckleberry was 
expanded in 1989 to include shelter and intake services. 
Therefore, the central receiving facility was first certified 
under Proposition J (Charter Section 10.104) in 1984. The 
expanded shelter and intake services contract was first 
certified by the Controller as being less expensive than if 
the services were performed by City employees in 1989, 
and have been continuously provided by an outside 
contract since then. 

2. As noted above, the Contractual Service Cost used for 
the purpose of the analysis is based on (a) the current 
contractor's cost of $622,710 to provide shelter and intake 
services, and (b) the salary and fringe benefits of 1.0 FTE 
8442 Senior Probation Officer. 

The contractor's cost to provide shelter and intake services 
in FY 1999-2000 of $622,710 is 4.8 percent more than tne 
FY 1998-99 cost of $594,405. Ms. Bell states that the 
increase contract cost is the result of a Cost of Living 
Adjustment in the contract. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

48 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

October 6, 1999 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



3. According to Ms. Bell the resolution is retroactive to 
July 1, 1999, because the contract with Huckleberry Youth 
Program commenced on that date, but delays in processing 
the contract resulted in a delay in bringing the proposed 
resolution to the Board of Supervisors. 

4. The Controller's supplemental questionnaire with the 
Juvenile Probation Department's responses is shown in 
the Attachment to this report. 



Recommendation: Approve the proposed resolution. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

to 



CHARTER 10.104.15 (PROPOSITION J) QUESTIONNAIRE 
DEPARTMENT: Juvenile Probation Department 

CONTRACT SERVICES: Shelter and Intake Services for Status Offenders 
CONTRACT PERIOD: July 1, 1999 through June 30. 2000 

1) Who performed the activity/service prior to contracting out? 

Juvenile Hall Counselors: 

3- 8316 Assistant Counselors 7- 8320 Counselors, Juvenile Hall 

1-8318 Counselor II 

2) How many City employees were laid off as a result of contracting out? 

None, Seven (1 1) positions were cut from the budget, but no permanent staff were laid off. 

3) Explain the disposition of employees if they were not laid off. 

Permanent employees moved to positions in other parts of Juvenile Hall fornierly filled by the 
Departments as-needed cadre. 

4) What percentage of City employees' time is spent on services to be contracted out? 



50% of 1-8414 Supervising Probation Officer 
100% of 1-8442 Senior Probation Officer 
100% of 3- 8440 Probation Officers 



100% of 2-8318 Counselors II 
100% of 14- 8320 Counselors 



5) How long have the services been contracted out? Is it likely to be a one-time or an ongoing 
request for contracting out? 

The contract with Hucklebeny Youth Programs, Inc. (formerly Youth Advocates, Inc.) for a central 
receiving facility was first entered into by the Juvenile Probation Department. February 1, 1984. 
The contact expanded to include shelter and intake for status offenders on April 1, 1989. Clearly, 
this agreement is ongoing and the Department expects to continue to contract out to obtain these 
services. 

6) What was the first fiscal year for a Proposition J certification? Has it been certified for each 
subsequent year? 

The first year for the central receiving facility contract was FY 1983/84. The first year for the 
expanded contract was FY 1988/89. This contract has been renewed each subsequent year. 

7) How will the services meet the goals of your MBE/WBE action plan? 

Hucklebeny Youth Programs, Inc. is a non-profit agency therefore, does not fall within the purview 
of MBE/WBE goals. Additionally, extensive outreach was accomplished at the Request for 
Qualifications staging seeking potential MBE/WBE providers. 

Does the proposed contract require that the contractor provide health insurance for its employees? Even 'rf 
not required, are health benefits provided? 

There is no stipulation in the body of the contract or within the scope of services requiring the 
contractor to provide health benefits. 

Proposition J Questionnaire - FY 1998-99, cont 

jmo:c:99_woii;co»reip;pf Jqu99.doc 

50 



The contractor's answers to HRC form 12B -101 (Declaration: Nondiscrimination in Contracts and 
Benefits attests they offer health benefits to their employees. 

9) Does the proposed contractor provide benefits to employees with spouses? If so, are the same benefits 
provided to employees with domestic partners? If not, how does the proposed contractor comply with 
the Domestic Partners ordinance? 

The contractor's answers to HRC form 12B -101 (Declaration: Nondiscrimination in Contracts and 
Benefits) attests they offer health benefits to their employees with spouses 

Additionally, they indicate they offer the same health benefits to the domestic partners of their 
employees. 

Department Representative: Cheyenne Bell 
Telephone Number: 753-7813. FAX 753-7715 



jmo:c:99_wortc;comip:pr Jqu99.doc 

51 



Memo to the Finance and Labor Committee 

October 6, 1999 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

Item 9 -File 99-1481 (S«.*te.. *wu-i*- M "A/*' 

1. This is a hearing to consider the City's parking collection system contract 
with PRWT Services, Inc. 

2. In July 1998 the Board of Supervisors approved a resolution authorizing the 
Department of Parking and Traffic (DPT) to execute a four year contract between 
the City and PRWT Services Inc. (PRWT) for an automated parking citation 
processing and collections system, including handheld ticket writing devices. The 
estimated cost of the four-year contract with PRWT was $20,903,740 for citation 
processing fees, to be paid from the DPTs General Fund budget. In addition, PRWT 
will receive a vendor fee of 34 percent of all "special collections" (discussed below) 
over the term of the contract. The DPT estimated that total special collections 
vendor fees payable to PRWT would amount to $3,748,500, for a total estimated cost 
of $24,652,240 ($20,903,740 for citation processing fees plus $3,748,500 in special 
collections vendor fees). 

The contract has three major system components: 

• A hand-held parking citation issuance and reporting system, consisting of 
electronic hand-held ticket writers, personal computers, supporting 
software, networking capabilities, and support services; 

• A parking citation processing system to serve as a central repository of 
information about citations issued and consisting of a variety of computer 
and hardware, software, management and support services; and 

• Support services of an Out-of-State and Special Collections Program, 
which will pursue collections from vehicles registered out of State and 
from motorists that have relocated, transferred vehicle ownership, or are 
otherwise diffi cult to collect. 

According to DPT, the contract with PRWT would lead to improved revenue 
collection, expanded collection activities, improvements in the efficiency of DPT 
operations, increases in the level of customer service, and additional savings from 
the transfer of certain DPT citation processing costs to PRWT. DPT estimated that 
the collection rate for parking citations would increase by two percent, from 69 
percent to 71 percent, yielding increased revenues to DPT of $1,227,960 in the first 
contract year. Special collections activities to be performed by PRWT were expected 
to yield additional revenues to DPT of $3,811,500 (net of a 34 percent PRWT fee for 
special collections) in the first contract year. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

52 



Memo to the Finance and Labor Committee 

October 6, 1999 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



Therefore, total estimated increased revenues to the City in the first year 
were estimated to equal $5,039,460 ($1,227,960 plus $3,811,500). Additionally, the 
PRWT contract was estimated to yield reduced expenditures, because PRWT was to 
provide services previously performed by DPT, of $1,300,000 annually (including 
$1,000,000 in DPT expenditure reductions and $300,000 in Treasurer-Tax Collector 
expenditure reductions for the cost of a "lock box" for the deposit of citation 
collections) for total increased revenues and reduced expenditures of $6,339,460 in 
the first full year of contract operation. Total citation processing fees payable to 
PRWT were estimated to be $5,368,060 for the first year of operation, resulting in a 
net estimated benefit to the City of $971,400 ($6,339,460 less $5,368,060). 

3. In the Budget Analyst's Performance Audit of DPT, dated April 1999, we 
noted that the PRWT contract contained no guarantees that projected net revenue 
increases to the City will be achieved. If the PRWT fails to meet the increased 
revenue collections, the result could either be a) a reduced expected net gain to the 
City, b) no net gain to the City, or c) even a reduction in net revenues, yet PRWT 
would still be paid its full contact amount, estimated to be $24,652,240 over the 
four-year contract period (including $20,903,740 for citation processing and 
$3,748,500 for special collection vendor fees). Therefore, the Budget Analyst 
recommended that contractor performance be closely monitored to permit ongoing 
evaluation and to formulate a basis for continuation or renewal of the contract. 

Our report contained three recommendations concerning the PRWT. These 
recommendations are shown below followed by the response to each (in italic text) 
as contained in a memo from DPT to the Board of Supervisors' Audit and 
Government Efficiency Committee dated May 18, 1999. 

• DPT should compile the necessary data and develop monthly and annual 
reports providing comparisons with pre-PRWT contract performance, as 
measured by the number of citations issued, the number collected and 
overall rates of collection. 

DPT Response : The PRWT technology has helped the Department improve 
its collection rate. While the number of tickets issued has remained 
constant pre-PRWT and post-PRWT (roughly 2.2 million per year), the rate 
of collection has increased by 14 percent since the new system was 
implemented. 

Note : No data was provided by DPT to support the statement 
that collection had increased by 14 percent. DPT now 
reports that for a four month period in FY 1998-99, 
citation revenue had increased by 14 percent compared 
to the same period in FY 1997-98. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

53 



Memo to the Finance and Labor Committee 

October 6, 1999 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

• DPT should develop similar monthly and annual reports providing 
comparisons for out-of-state and special collection revenues. 

DPT Response : DPT will do this. 

• DPT should monitor and evaluate improvements resulting from increased 
enforcement (such as identification of stolen and abandoned vehicles and 
parking "scofflaws") and improvements to customer service (reductions in 
time and effort responding to citizen inquiries, more efficient and timely 
service to citizens paying or protesting citations, etc.). 

DPT Response : DPT is making a strong effort to improve its customer 
service. The Department is monitoring customer service improvements from 
the PRWT contract, such as quicker and more comprehensive responses to 
letters and phone calls. We will also be able to monitor identification for 
stolen and abandoned vehicles with the new handheld computers. 

4. In a memo to the Finance Committee, dated October 1, 1999, shown as an 

Attachment to this report, Ms. Julia Dawson, DPTs Deputy Director of 
Administration and Finance, reports that the Department converted to the new 
collections system on November 16, 1998. DPT reports that from July 1998 to 
November 1998, the Department collected an average of $23.02 per citation issued, 
while from December 1998 to June 1999, it collected an average of $27.47 per 
citation issued. DPT therefore calculates that the PRWT contract generated an 
amount equivalent to $1,970,736 annually in additional revenues, exceeding their 
first year estimate of $1,227,960 by $742,776. 

As discussed below, the Budget Analyst notes that the DPTs calculation of 
improved citation revenue due to the PRWT contract of $1,970,736 is not based on a 
documented improvement in the collection rate. Instead, this revenue improvement 
is based on the assumption that the ratio of revenue collected to total citations 
issued has increased since implementation of the PRWT contract. 

DPT reports that in FY 1998-99 PRWT was paid $3,704,261 for citation 
processing services. 

Ms. Dawson's memo also advises that to date, DPT has not authorized PRWT 
Services to start the special collections program, which was expected to result in 
increased revenue to the City of $3,811,500 in the first year. According to Ms. 
Dawson, this is because (a) at the request of the Board of Supervisors, the 
Department enacted an amnesty program (ahowing persons with outstanding 
citations to pay such citations at the original fine amount with no additional 
penalties) which ended in March 1999; (b) difficulty converting parking citation 
data from DPTs old system to the PRWT system; and (c) Concerns over customer 
service. Upon further inquiry by the Budget Analyst, DPT advises that the out-of- 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

54 



Memo to the Finance and Labor Committee 

October 6, 1999 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

state special collections program will be implemented in November 1999 and the in- 
state special collections program will commence early in the year 2000. 

In response to an inquiry from the Budget Analyst, Ms. Dawson provided 
data that showed that DPT had reduced budgeted expenditures by a total of 
$1,060,660 as of the completion of FY 1998-99. DPT states that their FY 1999-2000 
budget has been reduced by $1,277,755 as a result of the PRWT contract. In 
addition, according to DPT, the Treasurer-Tax Collector no longer incurs the 
$300,000 annual cost of a lock-box for citation collections. Total reduced 
expenditures for DPT and the Treasurer-Tax Collector therefore amount to 
$1,360,660 in FY 1998-99 ($1,060,660 for DPT and $300,000 for the Treasurer-Tax 
Collector) and $1,577,755 for FY 1999-2000 ($1,277,755 for DPT and and and 
$300,000 for the Treasurer-Tax Collector). As reported previously, the DPT 
originally estimated that annual reduced expenditures would amount to $1,300,000 
for the DPT and the Treasurer-Tax Collector. 

The following table provides a comparative analysis of PRWT financial 
results based on the original estimates provided by DPT and recent information for 
PRWT contract operations during seven months of FY" 1998-99, from December 1, 
1998 through June 30, 1999. 



DPT's Estimate of the 
Benefits to the City for 
First Year of Operation 
of the PRWT Contract 

Increased Collections S 1 ,227,960 

Reduced Expenditures 1,300.000 

Special Collections Revenue 3,81 1 .500 
Citation Processing Fees Paid by 

the City to PRWT (5.368.460) 

Total Estimated Benefit to the City $ 971,400 

Total Actual Loss to the City 



DPT's Reported 

Actual Results From December, 1998 

through June of 1999 as a Result 

of the PRWT Contract. 

S 1,970,736 

1,360,660 



(3.704.261) 



(S 372,865) 



DPT states that the delay in implementing special collections discussed above 
and explained in the Attachment to this report will not result in a reduction in 
anticipated revenues to the City, because all estimated special collection revenue 
are expected to be realized prior to the expiration of the four-year term of the DPT 
contract. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to the Finance and Labor Committee 

October 6, 1999 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

5. As stated above, DPT reports that from July 1998 to November 1998, the 
Department collected an average of $23.02 per citation issued, while from December 
1998 to June 1999, it collected an average of $27.47 per citation issued. Using these 
figures, DPT calculates that in FY 1998-99 the PRWT contract generated 
$1,970,736 in additional parking fine revenues, exceeding their estimate of 
$1,227,960 by $742,776. The parking fine revenues for FY 1998-99 include $703,917 
in revenue resulting from the parking citation amnesty program approved by the 
Board of Supervisors in December of 1998. DPT estimates that the amount of total 
penalties waived as a result of the amnesty program was $776,574. 

DPTs calculation that between December 1, 1998 and June 30, 1999 the 
PRWT contract generated $1,970,736 in actual additional parking fine revenues is 
based upon the total amount of fines collected divided by the total number of 
citations issued during the same time period. However, this method of estimation 
did not take into account that: (1) citation fines can be of varying values, (2) some of 
the fines paid during the period will be for tickets issued prior to that time period, 
and (3) some of the fines for citations issued during the period will be paid after that 
time period. Therefore, it can not be determined if the actual collection rate, as 
measured by the percentage of total citations paid or the percentage of potential 
parking citation revenue actually collected, has improved as a direct result of 
PRWTs contract operations. 

DPT had earlier reported that its collection rate (as measured by the 
percentage of total citations paid) prior to the contract was 69 percent and 
estimated that the collection rate would increase by 2 percent, to 71 percent, in the 
first year of the contract and increase to 77 percent by the fourth year of the 
contract. DPT reports that the collection rate under the old system was estimated 
by taking a random sample of citations and determining what percentage of those 
citations had been paid. According to DPT, the new system under the PRWT 
contract has the capability to provide the collection rate for all citations issued and 
therefore using a sampling procedure to determine the collection rate will no longer 
be necessary. However, DPT advises that the collection rate since implementation 
of the PRWT contract cannot be precisely determined until the new system has been 
in place for at least a year. A minimum of a full years' worth of data is required 
because some fines are not paid for one or more years, according to DPT. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

56 



Memo to the Finance and Labor Committee 

October 6, 1999 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

Budget Analyst Overall Conclusions 

In summary, DPT previously, in July, 1998, estimated that the PRWT 
citation processing contract would produce a net benefit to the City of $971,400 in 
the contract's first year of operation. Based on DPT's calculated revenue 
improvement in relation to citations issued during FY 1998-99 of $1,970,736, plus 
reduced budgeted expenditures of $1,360,660, less processing fees paid by the City 
to PRWT of $3,704,261 for the period of December of 1998 through June of 1999, the 
City has actually lost $372,865. However, the Budget Analyst notes that this loss 
has been incurred as a result of the fact that DPT has delayed the commencement 
of Special Collections Program by PRWT. 

For the full four-year period of the PRWT contract, DPTs original estimated 
net benefit to the City was $3,852,360. This benefit was predicated on the 
assumption that the City would realize, over the four-year term of the PRWT 
contract, additional revenue from PRWTs special collections totaling $7,276,500. As 
previously noted, the Special Collections Program will pursue collections from 
vehicles registered out of State and from motorists that have relocated, transferred 
vehicle ownership, or are otherwise difficult to collect. Therefore, without such 
special collections revenue, the PRWT contract would actually result in a loss to the 
City of $3,424,140 ($3,852,360 less $7,276,500) over the four-year term of the PRWT 
contract. A final conclusion cannot be reached therefore until PRWT begins the 
Special Collections Program and the City is able to measure the actual benefits of 
such a program. 

Lastly, as discussed above, DPT has not demonstrated that the actual 
collection rate has improved as a direct result of the PRWT contract. Instead, DPT 
calculates that revenue improvement in relation to citations issued during FY 1998- 
99 amounted to $1,970,736. Until final data is obtained regarding the actual 
collection rate, citation collection performance, as a direct result of the PRWT 
contract, cannot be accurately determined. 

Recommendation 

The Budget Analyst recommends that the Board of Supervisors urge the 
Department of Parking and Traffic to renegotiate the PRWT contract to provide for 
financial guarantees in order to insure that the cost of the PRWT contract cannot 
exceed the benefits to the City. 

In response to this recommendation, in the Attachment to this report, the 
DPT instead proposes that the DPT report to the Board of Supervisors six months 
after implementation the Special Collections Program in order to provide additional 
revenue information. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

57 



S A N PHANCtaCO 



City and County of San Francisco 




pgPAWTMENT OF PaRKlNO A TBAFF IC 



WILLIE LEWIS BROWN, JFL. Mayor 

STUART R. SUNSHINE. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR 




Attachment 
Page 1 of 5" 



To: 

From: 
Through: 
Subject: 
Date: 



MEMORANDUM 

Honorable Members of the Finance Committee 
Board of Supervisors 

Julia Dawson, Deputy Director, Administration and Finandg^AO 

Stuart R Sunshiny Executive Director 

File 99-1481 F£earing to Consider Collection Contraa 

October 1, 1999 






On July 22, 1998, the Finance Committee of the Board of Supervisors authorized the 
Executive Director of the Department of Parking and Traffic to execute a four year 
contract between the City of San Francisco and PRWT Services, Inc. for an automated 
parking citation processing and collection system including handheld ticket writers. This 
contraa provides the department with a system that improves our ability to track and 
process citations, respond more quickly to the public's questions, detect scofflaw and 
stolen vehicles, and reduce the number of incorrect citations. All of the improvements in 
this contract were covered by a projected increase in fine revenue and would benefit the 
general fund by increasing the amount of revenue allocated to the San Francisco 
Municipal Railway. 

Benefits of the Contract 

The PRWT contract offers the City many advantages. Through this contract, we have a 
new citation processing system, a new citation and tow adjudication system, a new boot 
and tow monitoring system, a new residential parking permit processing system, ahoul 
250 new handheld ticket writers and printers, and new computer equipment. In addition, 
the system offers an abandon vehicle tracking system and a parking meter information 
system that we intend to implement in the immediate future. All of these programs 
benefit the citizens of San Francisco because we now offer information to the public 
more quickly. We have also integrated all of our department's activities and improved 
our ability to monitor our performance. 

We have included a bulleted list below describing in brief the many benefits of the 
contract. 

• Our citation noticing process has become more timeiy because we are sending notices 
out daily. We have also started to send second notices, which has increased our 
collections. 



H8J664-PARK FAX (416) IC4-H34 



26 Van Na«s Avenue, Suits 410 



San Francisco. CA &4102-4878 



58 



flLLouimcui. 

Page 2 ol 5 
Page 2 



• All DPT staff that use the system have instant access to citation records, images of 
manually written citations, and towing information, including the Citation Division, 
Hearing Division, Enforcement Division, Residential Permit Parking, Traffic 
Engineering, and Administration. The new system allows us to provide much better 
service to the public. 

■ Using the new handhold ticket writers, we arc able to identify about 100 jcofflaws a 
day on average (individuals who have 10 or more parking citations). 

• We will be loading stolen vehicle information into the handheld ticket writers, 
making it easier for the police to recover stolen vehicles and preventing our officers 
from writing unnecessary citations. 

• The department now has many more reports that it can use to track citation, hearing, 
boot, and tow information. We currendy have 54 reports that we receive ro an 
electronic format, and we have 150 additional available reports thai we have not 
implemented. 

• We have significant cost savings in our annual budget that offset the additional cost 
of our payments per citation processed. We have calculated a total net savings of 
SI ,277.755 between FY 97/98 and FY 99/00 to offset the estimated S5 million in 
citation processing costs annually 

Citation Processing 

In the first year of the contract, we projected that the department would issue 2^74,000 
parking citations, generate an additional $1,227,960 from an improved collection rate, 
and collect S3, 81 1,500 from the special collections progrnm. We assumed that our 
collection rate would improve slowly and that revenue from special collections would 
help to cover our contractual costs in the first year. 

The department convened to the new system on November 16, 1998. From Jury to 
November 1998, the department collected an average of S23.02 per citation, while from 
December to June, the department collected an average of S27.47 per citation. If the 
department had continued collecting an average of S23.02 per citation, we would have 
collected $51,571,269 in fine revenue. Instead, the department collected S57.246.266, 
which is 55,674,997, or 1 1% more than this estimate. In FY 1998/99, the department paid 
PRWT 53,704,261 in citation processing costs L'sing these figures, we estimate that the 
City generated a net increase of 51,970,736 in fine revenue as a result of this contract. 

Special Collections Program 

The special collections program covers old parking citations that the department was 
unable to collect using its previous computer systems. In the Budget Analyst's report to 
the Finance Committee on July 22, 1998, the department estimated that ii would collect 
53,8 1 1,500 from special collections in the first year. DPT intended to start the special 
collections program within a few months of converting the citation data to the new 
system. To date, the department has not authorized PRWT Services to start the special 
collections program We delayed implementation for three reasons, the Board of 



59 



Supervisors-requested parking citation amnesty program, the data conversion process and 
new system implementation, and our concerns over customer service. 

Board of Supervisors Parking Citation Amnesty Program 

The Board of Supervisors asked the department to enact an amnesty program, giving the 
public the chance to ask for information on their outstanding Stations and to pay for them 
at the original penalty amount. Our contractor, PRWT Services, agreed to run this 
program for the City, which delayed the implementation of a variety of systems and 
placed a strain on the limited resources that were dedicated to data conversion. We 
received 7,504 requests for amnesty, sent statements covering 44,942 parking creations, 
and collected $703,91 7 in fine revenue. We estimate that 2B.762 of these citations were 
paid as part of the amnesty program. Because of the amnesty program, we estimate that 
the City did not collect 5776,574 in penalty revenue. 

Data Conversion and New System Implementation 

The conversion of the data from the court's parking citation system to the system 
provided by PRWT Services was extremely difficult. We converted 10,000,000 citation 
records and combined information from the old Municipal Court system and our 
Residential Permit Parking system. Many of the citation records were difficult to 
interpret. We also successfully implemented a variety of new systems in less than six 
months, including handheld ticket writers, a new boot and tow tracking system, an 
enforcement management system, Project 20 (a volunteer work and time payment 
tracking system), a new hearing module, an ad hoc reporting system All of these systems 
are connected and data is shared between them. We implemented all of these systems 
with no discernable impact on our delivery of services to the public. The department was 
unwilling begin a collections program until it determined that all records were as accurate 
as possible, that our employees were familiar with the technology, and that we had 
performed sufficient testing to ensure that all of these systems were working well 
together. 

Customer Service 

DPT wanted to ensure that its contractor, PRWT Services, had assembled a highly 
qualified and responsive team to manage this comprehensive program with sensitivity, 
accuracy, and professionalism. We felt that we needed our contractor to be adequately 
prepared to interpret information, answer questions, and serve our customers' needs. 
Until our contractor has demonstrated its preparedness to the department, we will not 
move forward with the special collections program. 

Summary 

While the department has received many benefits from this contract, we recognize that 
this project was much more difficult than we anticipated when we appeared in front of 
this committee seeking your approval for this contract. While we have had a slow start, 
we have also seen our revenues increase 1 1% since this contract started. We have 
improved our ability to serve the public and implemented programs that we never had 
before, from handheld ticket writers to a fully integrated data management system. We 
have increased citation revenue and decreased expenditures. However, we also recognize 



Page 3 ot : 
Page 3 



60 



Attachmenc 
Page A of 5 

Page 4 



that high standards for the special collections program, which requires our contractor to 
contact individuals who are potentially unaware thai they have outstanding parlang 
citations or who have chosen to ignore their legal obligation to pay the City, has delayed 
the program. We feel confident that once we start the special collections program next 
month, this contract will generate the revenues that we originally provided to the Board. 
In our experience to date, *ve have met or exceed all of our financial projections, and we 
have no reason to believe that the contractor will not succeed. We do not feel that our 
delay in implementing special collections will ultimately result in lost revenue to the 
City. Ones we begin the program, we are confident that we will meet our revenue 
projections for the term of the contract 

Ln response to the recommendation of the Budget Analyst, we believe it is still too early 
to change the terms of the contract. In our initial budget projections to the Board of 
Supervisors, the special collections program and the revenues it will generate were an 
important component of contract implementation. Before we can evaluate the merits of 
this contract, we need to have all components of the contract in place. The department 
proposes that we report to the Board of Supervisors six months after the special 
collections program has started to provide additional revenue information 



61 



Attachment 
Page 5 of 5 



Department of Parking and Traffic 
Parking Fine Revenue 



July 

August 

Sept 

Oct 

Nov 

Dec 

Jan 

Feb 

Mar 

Apr 

May 

June 

Total 



July 

August 

Sapt 

Oct 

Nov 

Dec 

Jan 

Feb 

Mar 

Apr 

May 

June 

Total 

Pre-Conversion Rate Average 

Post-Conversion Rate Average 

Difference of the Average 





Citation 




1897/98 


Issuanca 




4,425,499 


190.714 




3.9BQ.947 


187,352 




4.217,985 


189.170 




4,121,784 


206,348 




3,586.729 


161.957 




4,117.295 


179,631 




4.139,787 


182,558 




3,818,256 


181,819 




4,541.630 


197.168 




4,539,762 


188,441 




4,821,566 


167,517 




4.252.665 


175,219 




50,765,085 


2,207,992 $ 
citation 


22.99 


1998/99 


Issuance 




4,646,319 


187,276 




4,542,077 


189,161 




4,642.208 


202,078 




4,881,067 


211,314 




3,497,492 


175,007 




4,156,413 


171,338 




3,929,521 


182,142 




4,498.447 


184,492 




7.040.917 


205,261 




5,707.213 


179.719 




4.799,966 


177.480 




4.904,625 


175.013 




57,248,266 


2,240,281 5 


26.65 


4,441,833 


192.967 $ 


23.02 


5,005,300 


182,206 $ 


27.47 


583,467 


(10,761) $ 


3.09 



62 



Memo to the Finance and Labor Committee 

October 6, 1999 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

Item 10 - File 99-0652 

1. This item is a hearing to consider the cost of transferring paramedic services 
from the Health Department to the Fire Department. 



2. The Office of the Sponsor of this item has informed the Budget Analyst that this 
item should be continued to the call of the Chair. 



Recommendation : Continue the hearing to the call of the Chair. 




Harvey M. Rose 



cc: Supervisor Yee 

Supervisor Bierman 
President Ammiano 
Supervisor Becerril 
Supervisor Brown 
Supervisor Katz 
Supervisor Kaufman 
Supervisor Leno 
Supervisor Newsom 
Supervisor Teng 
Supervisor Yaki 
Clerk of the Board 
Controller 
Legislative Analyst 
Matthew Hymel 
Stephen Kawa 
Ted Lakey 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

63 



Public Library,Gov't Info. Ctr., 5 th Fir. 
/#^%v Attn: Susan Horn 

'-^" CITY AND COUNTY W toSmti&LB OF SAN FRANCISCO 

DOCUMENTS DEPT. ^§|f 

UlT 7 1999 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

l^SAN FRANCISCO budget analyst 

PUBLIC LIBRARjtfo Market Street, Sviite 1025, San Francisco, CA 94102 (415) 554-7642 
jtj^ FAX (415) 252-0461 

October 5, 1999 

TO: Finance and Labor Committee 

FROM: Budget Analyst 

SUBJECT: Item 9, File 99-1481 - October 6, 1999 Finance and Labor Committee 
Meeting Pertaining to the PRWT Services Inc. Contract 

In the Budget Analyst's report to the Finance and Labor Committee dated 
October 1, 1999, the Budget Analyst reported that the PRWT contract had resulted 
in a loss to the City of $372,865 over the seven month period ending June 30, 1999. 
On Tuesda} 7 , October 5, 1999, the Department of Parking and Traffic advised the 
Budget Analyst that this loss reported by the Budget Analyst stems from an 
incorrect use of data contained in a Department of Parking and Traffic (DPT) 
memorandum of October 1, 1999 submitted by the DPT to the Board of Supervisors. 

This new advice from the DPT came after the DPT had reviewed our draft 
report several times. DPT and the Controller's Office have since provided the 
Budget Analyst with revised parking citation revenue data for FY 1997-98 and FY 
1998-99. 

Today, the DPT points out that their data now shows that the City derives a 
net benefit, and not a loss, resulting from the PRWT contract, of $1,868,086. 
However, the DPTs method of estimating this benefit was based on reported 
parking citation revenues in relation to parking citations issued, and, as the Budget 
Analyst previously reported, the DPTs method of estimation does not rely on an 
actual improvement in the collection rate attained by PRWT through claimed 
operational improvements. 

DPT is now claiming, as noted above, that the PRWT contract results in 
increased benefits to the City of $1.87 million after the first seven months of 
operation (December of 1998 through June of 1999), even without anv revenues 
being realized by the Citv from the Special Collections Program. This DPT 
calculation of the benefits to the City, over a seven month period, of $1.87 million, 
compares to DPTs original projection, made in July of 1998, of a $971,000 benefit 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 
October 5, 1999 
Page 2 

over the first full year (12 months) of the PRWT contract. It should be noted that 
the estimated benefit of $971,000 made by the DPT included over $3.8 million in 
revenues which were expected to be realized from the PRWT Special Collections 
Program, a program which has not even started to this day. 

The Budget Analyst does not believe that DPTs reported benefit of over $1.87 
million for the seven month period ending June 30, 1999, due directly to the PRWT 
contract, is credible. In response to DPT's revised estimated benefits provided today, 
the Budget Analyst continues to conclude that the alleged $1.87 million calculated 
benefit cannot be attributed directly to the PRWT contract for the following reasons: 

• As previously reported, DPT has not demonstrated that the actual 
collection rate has improved as a direct result of the PRWT contract. The 
DPTs calculation of improved citation revenue due to the PRWT contract 
is not based on a documented improvement in the collection rate. Instead, 
this revenue improvement is based on the assumption that the ratio of 
revenue collected to total citations issued has increased since 
implementation of the PRWT contract. Until final data is obtained 
regarding the actual collection rate, citation collection performance, as a 
direct result of the PRWT contract, cannot be accurately determined. 

• Information provided to the Budget Analyst shows that DPT also paid 
PRWT $306,221 for postage in addition to the $3,704,261 in fees paid by 
the City to PRWT as previously reported by the Budget Analyst. 
Therefore, this expenditure of $306,221 would reduce DPTs claimed 
benefit further to $1,561,865. 

• The Budget Analyst notes that the Controller's parking citation revenue 
records for FY 1998-99 show that the total budgeted revenue of 
$58,585,191 was not met by actual revenue of $57,268,521, a revenue 
shortfall of $1,316,670. The Budget Analyst therefore questions the 
contention that benefits from the PRWT contract have now exceeded 
original projections when total parking citation revenue fell short of 
budgeted amounts by over $1.3 million. 

For the reasons stated above, the Budget Analyst continues to conclude that 
the absence of financial guarantees that insure that the cost of the PRWT contract 
cannot exceed the benefits to the City creates the potential for either a) a reduced 
expected net gain to the City, b) no net gain to the City, or c) even a reduction in net 
revenues to the City. The Budget Analyst cannot conclude that the increase in 
actual Parking Citation Collections of $4,211,687 reported by DPT from FY 1997-98 
to FY 1998-99 would not have resulted without the services of PRWT. thus saving 
the City $3,704,261 in fees paid to PRWT. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 
October 5, 1999 
Page 3 



We therefore continue to recommend that the Board of Supervisors urge the 
Department of Parking and Traffic to renegotiate the PRWT contract to provide for 
financial guarantees in order to insure that the cost of the PRWT contract cannot 
exceed the benefits to the City. 




Harvey M. Rose 



cc: Supervisor Yee 
Supervisor Bierman 
President Ammiano 
Supervisor Becerril 
Supervisor Brown 
Supervisor Katz 
Supervisor Kaufman 
Supervisor Leno 
Supervisor Newsom 
Supervisor Teng 
Supervisor Yaki 
Clerk of the Board 
Controller 
Legislative Analyst 
Matthew Hymel 
Stephen Kawa 
Stuart Sunshine 
Ted Lakey 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 




City and County of £an Francisco 

Meeting Minutes 

Finance and Labor Committee 

Members: Supervisors Leland Yee, Sue Merman and Tom Ammiano 
Clerk: Mary Red 



City Hall 

1 Dr. Carlton B. 

Goodlett Place 

San Francisco, CA 

94102-4689 



hi 



Wednesday, October 13, 1999 



10:00 AM 

Regular Meeting 



City Hall, Room 263 



Members Present: Leland Y. Yee, Sue Bierman, Tom Ammiano. 



Meeting Convened 

The meeting convened 10:09 a.m. 

991876 [Asian Art Museum Relocation Bond Rates. Series 1999D] 
Supervisor Yee 

Motion amending Motion No. M99-1 15 and fixing definitive principal maturity dates and interest rates for 

$16,730,000 general obligation bonds (Asian Art Museum Relocation Project), Series 1999D. 

10/4/99, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance and Labor Committee. 

Heard in Committee. Speakers: Harvey Rose. Budget Analyst; Laura Bordelon, Mayor's Office of Finance. 

AWARDED by the following vote: 

Ayes: 3 - Yee, Bierman, Ammiano 



991828 [Government Funding, Gift to City of Taipei to fund earthquake relief efforts| 
Supervisors Teng, Yaki, Kaufman, Bierman, Becerril 

Ordinance appropriating $250,000 from the General Fund Reserve for an emergency gift to the City of Taipei 
to fund earthquake relief efforts, including $200,000 in unrestricted funding and $50,000 in funding for 
children's services, through the Office of the Mayor, for fiscal year 1999-2000. 

(Fiscal impact.) 

9/27/99, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance and Labor Committee. 

10/6/99, AMENDED, AN AMENDMENT OF THE WHOLE BEARING NEW TITLE. Heard in Committee. Speakers: Harvey Rose. 

Budget Analyst; Supervisor Teng, Victor Tseng, Director General, Taipei's Economic and Cultural Office; Elizabeth Liu, CoChair, 

S.F. /Taipei Sister City, Supervisor Yee; Supervisor Ammiano; Ted Lakcy; Depuly City Attorney. Amended to add $50,000 to be used for 

children's services. Continued to October 13, 1999 

10/6/99, CONTINUED AS AMENDED 

Heard in Committee. Speakers: Harvey Rose. Budget Analyst; James Cheung, Taiwan Council; Supervisor 

Yee. 

RECOMMENDED by the following vote: 

Ayes: 3 - Bierman, Ammiano, Yee 

DOCUMENTS DEPT 



OCT 1 9 £99 

SAN FRANCISCO 
PUBLIC LIBRARY 



City and County of San Francisco 



Printed at S:T I'M on IIIIIVQ 



Finance and Labor Committee Meeting Minutes October 13, 1999 



991756 [Budget Analyst Agreement! 

Motion exercising the first option set forth in the agreement for professional Budget Analyst services between 
the Board of Supervisors and Stanton W. Jones and Associates/Debra A. Newman/Rodriguez, Perez, Delgado 
& Company Certified Public Accountants/Harvey M. Rose Accountancy Corporation Certified Public 
Accountants/Mah & Louie Certified Public Accountants - a joint venture, to extend the term of the agreement 
from January 1, 2000 to December 31, 2001. (Clerk of the Board) 

9/27/99, RECEIVED AND ASSh.NH) ml inance and I abor ( i.mmitlcc 

Heard in i 'ommittee Speakers Gloria 1. Young, ( 'lerk oj the Hoard 
RECOMMEND*: I) l>> the following vote: 

Ayes: 3 - Yee, Bierman, Ammiano 



991757 [Vacation of portion of Dow Place to be used for fire truck turnaround, open space/parking in 

connection with residential project being developed bjf adjacent propertv owner. 77 Dow Place Lofts, 
LLC] 

Ordinance ordering the summary street vacation of a portion of the western end of Dow Place; adopting 
findings pursuant to the California Streets and Highways Code, Chapter 4. Sections 8330 Et Seq. (Public 
Streets, Highways, and Service Easement Law, Summary Vacation); and adopting findings of conformity with 
the General Plan and priority policies of Planning Code Section 101.1. (Real Estate Department ) 

(Categorically exempt from Environmental Review under Class 1 (Minor alteration of existing streefsidewalk) 
and Class 5 (Minor alteration of land use limitations) of State Environmental Review Guidelines; companion 
measure to File 991758.) 

9/20/99, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED 10 Finance and I abor Committee 

Heard in Committee Speakers Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst. Harry Qumn. Real Estate Department. 
Supervisor Yee 

RECOMMENDED by the following vote: 
Ayes: 3 - Yee, Bierman, Ammiano 



991758 |Proposed sale of portion of Dow Place to 77 Dow Place Lofts. LLC at a fair market \alue of 
approximately S247.000.00| 

Ordinance authorizing the sale of property, a portion of western end of Dow Place, and adopting findings 
pursuant to Planning Code Section 101.1. ( Real Estate Department ) 

(Companion measure to File 991757.) 

9/20/99, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED lo Finance and Labor Committee 

■ Heard in Committee. Speakers Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst. Harry Qumn, Real Estate Department, 
Supervisor Yee 

RECOMMENDED by the following \ote: 
Ayes: 3 - Yee, Bierman, Ammiano 



City and County of San Francisco 2 Printed at 5:2 7 PM on 10/13/99 



Finance and Labor Committee 



Meeting Minutes 



October 13, 1999 



991812 |Reserved Funds, Department of Public Health] 

Hearing to consider release of reserved funds, Department of Public Health, (Fiscal Year 1999-2000 Budget), 
in the amount of $245,000 to fund professional services for the Mission Single Room Occupancy (SRO) 
Collaborative project. (Department of Public Health) 
9/21/99, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance and Labor Committee. 

Heard in Committee. Speakers/ Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst; Supervisor Ammiano; Anne Kronenberg, 
Department of Public Health; Amy Fishman. Mission Housing Development Corporation. 
APPROVED AND FILED by the following vote: 
Ayes: 3 - Yee, Bierman, Ammiano 



991826 [Federal Funding - Community Development] 
Mayor 

Resolution approving the amendment to the final proposal and action plan for San Francisco's 1999 
Community Development Block Grant Program, Emergency Shelter Grant Program, and HOME Investment 
Partnership resulting from a three month extension of the existing 1999 program year. 
9/27/99, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance and Labor Committee. 

Heard in Committee. Speakers; Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst; Gene Coleman, Mayor's Office of Community 
Development. 

RECOMMENDED by the following vote: 
Ayes: 3 - Yee, Bierman, Ammiano 



991852 |Lease and Use Agreement Modifications to allow eight (8) airlines to relocate all international flight 
operations from Central Terminal Building to a new International Terminal Building as part of the 
Airport Master Plan Expansion Program] 

Resolution approving modifications the terms of Airline/Airport Lease and Use Agreements between the City 
and various airlines to allow such airlines to relocate international flight operations to the New International 
Terminal. (Airport Commission) 

9/28/99, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance and Labor Committee. 
Continued to October 20, 1999. 
CONTINUED by the following vote: 
Ayes: 3 - Yee, Bierman, Ammiano 



991853 (New lease and operating agreements to allow eighteen (18) airlines to relocate all international flight 
operations from Central Terminal Building to a new International Terminal Building as part of the 
Airport Master Plan Expansion Program] 

Resolution approving the terms of lease and operating agreements between the City and various airlines to 
allow such airlines to relocate international flight operations to the New International Terminal. (Airport 
Commission) 

9/28/99, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance and Labor Committee. 
Continued to October 20. 1999. 
CONTINUED by the following vote: 
Ayes: 3 - Yee, Bierman, Ammiano 



City and County of San Francisco 



Printed at S: 2^ PM on 10,13/99 



I inance and Labor Committee Meeting Minutes October I <. 1999 



991412 |Sludy of Rent Control Ordinance Socio-Kconomic Kffects; Requiring Finding!] 
Supervisors Brown, Teng 

Ordinance amending Administrative Code by adding a new Section 376A to provide that the Residential Rent 
Stabilization and Arbitration Board shall obtain a neutral comprehensive fact-based socio-economic study of 
the effects of the Residential Rent Stabilization and Arbitration Ordinance in San Francisco; and providing 
that, pending completion of the study, any proposed substantive amendment to that ordinance must be 
supported by independent fact-based findings. 

(Adds Section 376A.) 

8/16/99, ASSIGNED UNDER 30 DAY RULE to Finance and I ibm Committee, expires on 9 I 5 1999. 

Heard m Committee Speakers In Support Teresa Gonio 

CONTINUED TO CALL OK INK ( II MR In the following vole: 
Ayes: 3 - Yee, Bierman, Ammiano 



991413 (Appropriation, $175,000, Rent Arbitration Board Fact-Based Socio Kconomic Studv | 
Supervisor Brown 

Ordinance appropriating $175,000, Residential Rent Stabilization and Arbitration Board to fund a fact-based 
socio-economic study of the effects of the San Francisco Residential Rent Stabilization and Arbitration 
Ordinance (Administrative Code Chapter 37), for fiscal year 1999-2000. 

(Companion measure to File 991412.) 

8/16/99, ASSIGNED UNDER 30 DAY RUI E to Finance and I aba Committee, expires on 9 I. VI 999 
CONTINUED TO CALL OK THE CHAIR b) the following vote: 
Ayes: 3 - Yee. Bierman, Ammiano 



981238 [Lease Revenue Bonds. North Beach Parking C>arage| 
Mayor, Supervisor Yee 

Ordinance approving the issuance of Lease Revenue Bonds (not to exceed $8,500,000). of the Parking 
Authority of the City and County of San Francisco; approving the execution and deliver, of a project lease 
between the Authority, as lessor, and the City, as lessee (including certain indemnification provisions therein |. 
approving a continuing disclosure certificate relating to said Bonds: approving the form and circulation of an 
official statement relating to said Bonds; authorizing the payment of certain costs of issuance from the 
proceeds of such bonds; correcting legal title to the property . ratifying previous actions taken in connection 
with the foregoing matters; and authorizing the taking of appropriate actions in connection therewith 

(Fiscal impact.) 

7/27/98, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance Committee. 

1/12/99. FILED PURSUANT TO RULE 5.37. 

10/4/99, REACTIVATED PURSUANT TO RULE 5.25 to Finance and Labor Committee. Superseded by version dated July 29, 1998 

from City Attorney . changing Ordinance into Resolution 

Supervisor Yee requested this matter he reactivated See File 991719. 

CONTINUED TO CALL OF THE CHAIR by the following vote: 
Ayes: 3 - Yee, Bierman, Ammiano 



ADJOURNMENT 



The meeting adjourned at 10:50 am 



Cin and County of San Francisco 4 Printed at 5: 7' PM on 10/13/99 



P5V 



3/9? 



CITY AND COUNTY 




Public Library, Gov't Information Ctr.. 5 th Fir. 
Attn: Susan Horn, Dept. 41 



OF SAN FRANCISCO 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

1390 Market Street, Suite 1025, San Francisco, CA 94102 (415) 554-7642 
FAX (415) 252-0461 



October 8, 1999 
TO: ^Finance and Labor Committee 

FROM: .Budget Analyst 

SUBJECT: ..October 13, 1999 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 
Item 1-File 99-1876 



Department: 
Item: 



Description: 



Mayor's Office of Public Finance 

Motion amending Motion No. M99-115 and fixing 
definitive principal maturity dates and interest rates for 
$16,730,000 General Obligation Bonds (Asian Art 
Museum Relocation Project), Series 1999D. 

On September 29, 1999, the Finance and Labor 
Committee approved a Motion (No. 99-115) authorizing 
the award and fixing definitive interest rates for 
$16,730,000 of City and County of San Francisco General 
Obligation Bonds for the Asian Art Museum Relocation 
Project, Series 1999D. However, Ms. Laura Bordelon of 
the Mayor's Office of Public Finance reports that at the 
time this Motion was approved, the Department did not 
submit the required schedule of debt service payments to 
the Finance and Labor Committee. As a result of this 
technical oversight, the proposed motion will amend the 
prior motion to include the debt service payment schedule 
as Appendix A to the proposed motion, which also 
identifies the bond maturity dates, principal amounts and 
interest rates. 

DOCUMENTS DEPT. 

OCT 1 3 1999 

SAN FRANCISCO 
PUBLIC LIBRARY 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

October 13, 1999 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

Comments: As previously reported by Ms. Bordelon, Salomon Smith 

Barney was the selected low bidder for the issuance of 
these bonds, bidding an interest rate of 5.25 percent. Ms. 
Bordelon also notes that the bond documents allow the 
City to adjust the debt service so that the payments are 
essentially equal throughout the repayment period. The 
proceeds from the sale of these bonds will be used for 
reconstruction of the old Main Library building, including 
structural, roofing, electrical, plumbing, heating and 
ventilation, to prepare for the relocation of the Asian Art 
Museum. 

Recommendation: Approve the proposed amended motion. 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

October 13, 1999 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

2 - File 99-1828 



Item 
Note: 



This item was continued by the Finance and Labor Committee at its 
meeting of October 6, 1999. This ordinance was amended to provide 
for an additional $50,000 to be designated for Children's services. 



Department: 
Item: 

Amount: 
Source of Funds: 
Description: 



Comments: 



Office of the Mayor 

Supplemental appropriation of $200,000 from the 
General Fund Reserve for an emergency gift to the 
City of Taipei to fund earthquake relief efforts. 

$250,000 

General Fund Reserve 

On September 21, 1999, an earthquake measuring 
7.6 on the Richter Scale hit approximately 90 miles 
south of Taipei, Taiwan, collapsing numerous 
buildings, leaving approximately 2,100 persons 
dead, and causing enormous damage throughout 
the country. According to the Office of the Sponsor 
of the proposed ordinance, the City of Taipei, a 
Sister City to San Francisco, gave $100,000 to the 
City of San Francisco for earthquake relief and 
rebuilding efforts after the Loma Prieta 
Earthquake in 1989. The proposed ordinance would 
appropriate $200,000 of General Fund monies to 
the City of Taipei, Taiwan to assist with their 
earthquake relief efforts. 

1. The proposed $200,000 would be coordinated 
with the local Taipei Economic and Cultural Office, 
to ensure that these funds go directly to the City of 
Taipei for earthquake use. According to Ms. 
Melinda Yee Franklin of the Mayor's Office of 
International Trade and Commerce, the Taipei 
Economic and Cultural Office, located at 555 
Montgomery Street in San Francisco, is the local 
diplomatic office for Taipei that is in lieu of a 
consulate, because the United States government 
does not have formal relations with the Taiwan 
government. Ms. Franklin advises tint the 
proposed funds are likely to be used for medical 
relief, emergency equipment, technical expertise 
and rebuilding and construction activities, 
although a specific budget or allocation of how the 
funds will be spent is not available. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

3 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

October 13, 1999 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

2. According to the Office of the Sponsor of the 
proposed legislation, in addition to the proposed 
$200,000 gift from the City of San Francisco, 
approximately $4 million of other funds have been 
raised by the local community to be forwarded to 
Taiwan to assist in their earthquake relief efforts. 

3. According to the Office of the sponsor of the 
proposed ordinance, after the Loma Prieta 
Earthquake in 1989, in addition to the City of 
Taipei's $100,000 gift, the City of Osaka gave the 
City of San Francisco $100,000 and the citizens of 
Osaka raised another $400,000 for the City's 
earthquake relief and rebuilding efforts. Ms. 
Franklin reports that the funds that the City 
received directly for earthquake relief after the 
Loma Prieta earthquake in 1989 were deposited 
into the Mayor's Special Earthquake Relief Fund 
and expended primarily for municipal 
infrastructure improvements. The Office of the 
Sponsor also notes that in 1995, after the Kobe 
Earthquake in Japan, the City of San Francisco 
gave $50,000 to San Francisco's Sister City of 
Osaka for their earthquake relief and rebuilding 
efforts. 

4. On September 27, 1999, the Board of Supervisors 
approved a resolution (File 99-1775) extending 
condolences and expressing sympathy and concern 
for the earthquake victims in Taiwan, urging the 
San Francisco community to participate in 
humanitarian aid efforts and directing the Clerk of 
the Board of Supervisors to forward a copy of the 
resolution to the Taipei Economic and Cultural 
Office, the City of Taipei and the Government of 
Taiwan. 

Recommendation: Approval of the proposed ordinance is a policy 

matter for the Board of Supervisors. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

October 13, 1999, Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

Items 4 and 5 - Files 99-1757 and 98-1758 



Department: 



Items: 



Description: 



Comments: 



Department of Public Works (DPW) 
Department of Real Estate (DRE) 
Planning Department 

File No. 98-1757 

Ordinance ordering the summary street vacation of a 
portion of the western end of Dow Place, Assessor's Block 
3750, Lot 002, adopting findings pursuant to the 
California Streets and Highways Code and adopting 
findings of conformity with the General Plan and priority 
policies of Planning Code Section 101.1. 

File No. 98-1758 

Ordinance authorizing the sale of the end portion of Dow 
Place, at a price of $247,000, and adopting findings 
pursuant to City Planning Code Section 101.1. 

The proposed ordinances would authorize (a) the 
summary street vacation of a portion of the western end 
of Dow Place, and (b) the sale of such property to 77 Dow 
Place Lofts, LLC, a private real estate developer. The 
Developer is constructing a condominium project adjacent 
to the subject parcel. According to the Director of 
Planning the subject parcel, consisting of approximately 
1,404 square feet, "would be used for fire truck 
turnaround radius requirements, open space, and for 
parking, which are necessary amenities for the future 
residents of the subject area." 

Mr. Zuffo states that the proposed sale price of $247,000 
(approximately $176 per square foot for 1,404 square feet) 
is the same price per square foot that the Developer paid 
in February of 1998 for the adjacent property, on which 
the development will be constructed. According to Mr. 
Zuffo, the proposed sales price of $247,000 represents fair 
market value based on an appraisal of the subject parcel 
conducted in late 1998 by the Department of Real Estate. 

1. As stated in a letter from the Planning Department, 
the subject parcel is "essentially a soil pile and technically 
a dead end street, which in its current form can only be 
used by the proposed project at 77 Dow Place." 



Board of Supervisors 
Budget Analyst 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

October 13, 1999, Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



2. The Planning Department found that (a) development 
of the subject area would provide necessary amenities for 
the future residents of the proposed development, (b) the 
proposed vacation and sale is in conformity with the 
General Plan, and (c) the proposed vacation and sale is 
categorically exemDt from Environmental Review. The 
proposed vacation and sale has been reviewed by the 
Planning Department for consistency with the Eight 
Priority Policies of Planning Code Section 101.1. 



Recommendation: Approve the proposed ordinances. 



Board of Supervisors 
Budget Analyst 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

October 13, 1999 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



Item 6 -File 99-1812 

Department: 

Item: 



Amount: 
Source of Funds: 
Description: 



Department of Public Health (DPH) 

Release of reserved funds for the Mission SRO (Single 
Room Occupancy) Collaborative Project to provide fire 
prevention, tenant outreach, hotel code enforcement 
monitoring, and emergency planning and response 
services provided to residents of single room occupancy 
hotels located in the Mission District. 

$245,000 

FY 1999-2000 General Fund Reserve 

During the FY 1999-2000 budget review, the Board of 
Supervisors appropriated and placed on reserve $245,000, 
for the Mission SRO (Single Room Occupancy) 
Collaborative Project, pending the submission of budget 
details. The subject funds of $245,000 for the Mission 
SRO Collaborative Project are for the purpose of providing 
fire prevention and other services for residents of SRO 
hotels located in the Mission District. The Department of 
Public Health (DPH) has developed details for the use of 
the $245,000 appropriated for the Mission SRO 
Collaborative Project and is now requesting release of 
those funds. 

According to DPH, the $245,000 would be used to fund a 
professional services contract with the Mission SRO 
Collaborative for a 12 month term, commencing once the 
subject funds are made available. The Mission SRO 
Collaborative consists of three non-profit organizations, 
the Mission Housing Development Corporation, St. 
Peter's Housing Committee and the Mission Agenda. 
DPH advises that the subject funds would be used to 
provide fire prevention, tenant outreach, hotel code 
enforcement monitoring, and emergency planning and 
response for all of the 56 SRO hotels in the Mission 
District, which represent approximately 2,000 units of 
housing. Attachment I, provided by DPH, contains 
additional project details. Attachment II, also provided 
by DPH, is a list of the 56 SRO hotels and their addresses 
in the Mission District. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

October 13, 1999 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



Budget: The total estimated project cost is $245,000 which 

includes $42,650 for start-up costs and $202,350 for 
program costs, as follows: 

Start-Up Costs 

1.0 FTE Resource Specialist 

(2 months <s S35.250 annually) $5,875 

0.5 FTE Director of Supportive Housing 
(2 mos. @ S38.S50 annually) 3,238 

Subtotal $9,113 

Fringe Benefits (approx. 20 percent) 1,824 

Office Supplies/Postage 334 

Program/Educational (see Comment #2) 666 

Consultant/Subcontractor (see Comment #3) 22.000 

Fiscal Agent (see Commer.- 3,713 
Equipment (5 computers f§> S800 each. 2 fax machines & $400 

each. 1 printer § S200) 5.000 

Total Start-Up Costs $42,650 

Program Costs 

1.0 FTE Collaborative Coordinator S26.667 

(10 mos. @ S32.000 annually i 
0.53 FTE Resource Specialist 15.569 

(10 mos.@ $35,250 annually i 
0.3 FTE Director of Supportive Housing 9.713 

(10 mos. @ S3S.850 annually) 

Subtotal S51.949 

Fringe Benefits (approx. 25 percent) 13.038 

Office Supplies/Postage 1.667 

Printing and Reproduction 2.000 

Program/Educational (see Comment £2) 3.333 

Consultant/Subcontractor (see Comment #3) 110,000 

Eviction Defense Legal Costs 1,800 

Fiscal Agent -- (see Comment - ! 18.563 

Total Program Costs S202.350 

Total Start-Up and Program Costs S245.000 



Comments: 1. According to Ms. Anne Okubo of the DPH. a Request 

for Proposals was not issued for this project. Ms. Okubo 
advises that the Mission SRO Collaborative, consisting of 
the Mission Housing Development Corporation. St. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

October 13, 1999 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

Peter's Housing Committee and the Mission Agenda, was 
chosen on a sole source basis due to the specialized 
expertise it offers in providing services to residents of 
SRO hotels located in the Mission District. 

2. Ms. Okubo advises that $666 for start-up costs and 
$3,333 for program costs, for a total of $3,999, will be 
allocated to "Program/Educational" activities. Ms. Okubo 
reports the $3,999 would pay for educational materials 
and programs for tenant meetings, outreach, tenant 
counseling, and San Francisco Fire Department 
workshops on fire prevention. 

3. The proposed budget allocates $11,000 for start-up 
costs and $55,000 in program costs, for a total of $66,000 
each to the St. Peter's Housing Committee and the 
Mission Agenda (who, together with the Mission Housing 
Development Corporation, make up the Mission SRO 
Collaborative) for housing counseling and tenant advocacy 
services. This amounts to total consulting costs of 
$132,000 ($22,000 in start-up costs and $110,000 in 
program costs). Attachment III to this report, provided by 
DPH, contains budget details for the $132,000 budgeted 
for consulting costs. 

4. The proposed budget aDocates $3,713 for start-up costs 
and $18,563 in program costs, for a total of $22,276 
(approximately 9 percent of the total contract amount), to 
fund a fiscal agent to provide accounting, contract 
monitoring, billing, audit, administrative, office, and 
personnel matters. According to Ms. Okubo, the market 
rate for fiscal agents generally ranges from between 10 to 
15 percent of the total contract amount. Ms. Okubo 
advises the Mission Housing Development Corporation, 
one of the three non-profits which make up the Mission 
SRO Collaborative, will serve as the project's fiscal agent. 

Recommendation: Approve the requested release of reserved funds. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



ATTACHMENT T 
Fage 1 of 3 



FY 99-00 Board Add Back Funding 
Funds Held on Reserve 

INITIATIVE TITLE: Mission SRO Collaborative 

AMOUNT: $245,000 

APPROPRIATION STATUS: One time funding 

USE OF FUNDS: Professional services 

DEPARTMENT CONTACT: Anne Okubo 554-2605 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION: The Mission SRO Collaborative will provide a comprehensive 
approach to single room occupancy (SRO) hotel fire prevention and community stabilization in 
the Mission District. The program will concentrate on SRO tenant outreach and community 
stabilization, SRO/landlord fire safety and prevention organizing campaign, SRO hotel code 
enforcement monitoring, and SRO emergency planning and response. The program will serve 
very low-income SRO tenants in the Mission district who are at risk of homelessness because of 
a lock of support services and because of the unsafe and unhealthy conditions in the SRO hotels. 

The program was developed as part of the Emergency Response Policy Coordinating Committee, 
a multi-agency committee that formed to address the rash of fires that destroyed over 700 SRO 
units this past year. The program is structured as a partnership between community based 
organizations and City Departments working with SRO hotels and their tenants. 

The Department of Public Health proposes to use an existing contractor, Mission SRO 
Collaborative to provide these professional services. The SRO Collaborative consists of Mission 
Housing Development Corporation as the lead agency, St Peter's Housing Committee, and the 
Mission Agenda 

Funds will be used to provide: 

1) SRO Tenant Outreach and Community Stabilization. The pilot program will lay the 
groundwork for tenant participation in community building and fire prevention by addressing 
immediate social service needs and developing tenant leadership. 

2) SRO Tenant/Landlord Fire Safety and Prevention Organizing Campaign. Pne pilot 
program will enhance the San Francisco Fire Department's fire prevention efforts by 
increasing community participation and involving "hard to reach" tenant populations. 

3) SRO Hotel Code Enforcement Monitoring. The pilot program will improve conditions in 
SRO hotels and promote permanent tenancy in order to stabilize buildings. 

4) SRO Emergency Planning and Response. The pilot program will improve coordination 
among public and community agencies to better prevent and respond to emergencies. 

L:SSej»BUIM»m5lil»\IU««rvt*»e 0921*4 II 55 AM 



10 



ATTACHMENT I 
Page 2 of 3 

The Mission SRO Collaborative members will provide the following specialized services to the 
team: 

• Mission Housing Development Corporation (MHDC) contributes its expertise in 
developing and managing quality affordable housing with an emphasis on community- 
building and supportive programs. MHDC will be the lead program and the fiscal agent of 
the collaborative. 

• St. Peter's Housing Committee offers multilingual tenant advocacy and counseling and 
promotes landlord compliance with housing laws. 

• Mission Agenda organizes and empowers low-income tenants to protect their rights and 
develops tenant participation and leadership. 

Together these agencies contribute established and strong relationships with tenants, landlords, 
City agencies, neighborhood organizations, and social service providers. Utilizing the 
Collaborative 's expertise and experience in SRO hotel stabilization in the Mission, this pilot 
program serves as a cost-effective and replicable model for other neighborhoods with a large 
concentration of SRO hotels - Tenderloin, South of Market, and Chinatown. 

Collaborative staff will conduct outreach in all of the 56 SRO hotels in the Mission District 
which represent approximately 2000 units of housing. Of these, the Collaborative will identity' 
20 target hotels to conduct more extensive outreach and support services. Outreach efforts will 
include street outreach, "door knocking," mailings, phone calls, and distributing flyers and 
information materials. The Collaborative will train and employ 5 Tenant Peer Advocates to 
assist Collaborative staff in the outreach and support service activities. Bilingual staff and 
Spanish translation will be available. 

Services will be provided at the three Collaborative offices. Mission Housing Development 
Corporation, St. Peters Housing Committee, and Mission Agenda, at the SRO hotels, and at 
community events and workshops. 

Regular weekly Collaborative team meetings will be conducted with representatives from 
MHDC, SPHC, and Mission Agenda. Broader quarterly meetings will be held to assess the 
progress of the pilot program, and to plan for the upcoming quarter. The Collaborative will work 
closely with a broad network of service providers and community organizations, including San 
Francisco Safety Awareness for Everyone (SAFE), which provides in-kind community safety 
and security services. The Collaborative will also maintain close working partnership with City' 
Departments such as the Department of Public Health, San Francisco Fire Department, the City 
Attorney's Code Enforcement Task Force, Department of Human Services, Department of 
Building Inspections, and the Office of Emergency Services. 

Prior to commencing services, the Colloborative will incur start-up costs to: 

• Hire and train new staff and set up new systems; 

• Meet with the San Francisco Fire Department to establish a cooperative working relationship; 

• Organize and facilitate pilot fire prevention workshop; 

• Evaluate effectiveness of workshops; and 

• Provide tenant outreach and counseling. 

l:\W-OCBUDMmi>ima».rr» an 09/21/9* llSSAii 



11 



att/.c'"!?:':t i 

Fage 3 of 3 



The budget is as follows: 





Clients / 


No. of 


Cost Per 


Total 


Service 
Tenant outreach 


Month 
50 


Units 
4,000 


Unit 
S 20.24 


Cost 
$ 80,940 


Tenant stabilization 


100 


1,000 


40.47 


40,470 


Community programs 


30 


20 


4 r 047.00 


80,940 


Subtotal 








J 202,350 


Start-Up 








42.650 


Total 








S 245,000 



L \9«-008LT>\nCTDl»n*R«»«<v«.doo 0S.1U*) 



12 



ATTACHMENT 11 



Address 
1906 Mission St. 
1939-1943 Mission St. 
2026-2030 Mission St. 
2032-2034 Mission St. 
2040-2042 Mission St. 
2056-2058 Mission St. 
2060-2062 Mission St. 
2072-2074 Mission St. 
2080-2086 Mission St. 
2126-2132 Mission St. 
2020-2022 Mission St. 
2135-2137 Mission St. 
2165-2169 Mission St. 
2176-2186 Mission St. 
2284-2290 Mission St. 
2280-2282 Mission St. 
2424-2426 Mission St. 
2351-2361 Mission St. 
2370 Mission St. 
2419-2429 Mission St. 
2438 Mission St. 
2477 Mission St. 
2522 Mission St. 
2697 Mission St. 
2766 Mission St. 
1041 Valencia St 
866-870 Valencia St. 
992-998 Valencia St. 
663-665 Valencia St. 
553-563 Valencia St. 
524-528 Valencia St. 
443-449 Valencia St. 
418-422 Valencia St. 
401-407 Valencia St. 
3040-3052 Sixteenth St. 
3032 Sixteenth St. 
3159-3161 Sixteenth St. 
3055-3061 Sixteenth St. 
3105-3111 Sixteenth St. 
3143 Sixteenth SL 
3153 Sixteenth St. 
2791 Sixteenth St. 
520 S. Van Ness 
215 Fourteenth 
30 Sycamore 
1312 Utah 
94 Duboce 
1550 Howard 
179 Julian 
2901 Mariposa 
45 McCoppin 
35 Woodward 
3491 Twentieth 
3560-62 Twentieth 
3270 Twentyfirst 
3414 Twentyfifth 



Department of Public Health 

Mission SRO Collaborative - Fire Suppression 

SRO Hotels 

Name of Hotel 

Grand Southern 

Union 

Krisna 

Radha 

Westman 

Amit 

Thor 



Albert 



Star 
Prita 



El Capitan 

Sierra 
Andora Inn 
Aku 

Norma 
Cyrstal 



King's 

Curtis 

Crown 

Sunrise 

Apollo 

Royan 

Altamont 

Ukiah 

16 m St. Hotel 

Eula 

Casa Valencia 



All Star 
Mission 



Hotel Dolores 



St. Alban's 



13 



attac}?^;::! in 



Mission SRO Collaborative Pilot Program Consultant/Subcontractor Budget 



St.Peter's Housing Committa* 


FT5 


Salary 


Benefits 
@25% 


1 


SRO Tenant Counselor 
Senior Tenant Counselor 
Directcr 


100% 
50% 
2C% 


28.000 j 

32,000 

40,000 


7,000 
8.000 

10.000 


s 
s 
s 


35,000 
20,000 
1C.0OC 


Total Saiares and Benefits 


1 7FTEs 


I 


$ 


85,000 


Program / Educational Suprjlies 
Office Supplies / Postage 


s 
1 


500 

500 


Total Operating Exoenses 






IS 


1.000 




Total St.Peter's Housing Committee~BudgBt 


H 


66,000 



Benefts 
Mission Agenda FTE Salary @ 25°/. 


SRO Tenant Counselor 
Senior Tenant Counselor 


100% 
50% 


21,000 
21.000 


5,250 

5.250 


S 

s 


26.250 
13,125 


Total Salar.es an; Benefits 


1 5 FTEs | 




1 


33,375 


Stipends (5 St'pended Peer Tenant Advocates at S10C/wee< for 5C w*s) 
Mission Agenda portion of office rent at 5100/month 
Program, / Educational Supples 
Office Supplies / Postage 


1 

s 
s 
1 


25.000 

1,200 

225 

200 


Total Ope*at'-,(j Expenses 


1 


26,625 




Total Mission Agenda Budget 


• 


66,000 



1/, 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

October 13, 1999 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

Item 7 - File 99-1826 



Department: 



Item: 



Amount: 
Source of Funds: 



Description: 



Comments: 



Mayor's Office of Community Development 
(MOCD) 

Resolution approving an amendment to the Final 
Proposal and Action Plan for San Francisco's Community 
Development Block Grant Program, Emergency Shelter 
Grant Program, and Home Investment Partnership 
Program resulting from a three-month extension of the 
existing 1999 program year. 

$3,920,955 

Community Development Block Grant unexpended 
balances from 1996, 1997 and 1998 totaling $503,000 and 
program income funds from the San Francisco 
Redevelopment Agency and from U.S. Department of 
Housing and Urban Development Action Grants, totaling 
$3,417,955. 

The proposed resolution would authorize an amendment 
to the City's 1999 Community Development Block Grant 
Program, including the Emergency Shelter Grant 
Program, and the HOME Investment Partnership 
Program, extending the program year from March 31, 
1999, for three months, to June 30, 2000, to make the 
term of the program consistent with the City's fiscal year, 
July 1 to June 30. 

According to a memorandum from the Mayor's Office of 
Community Development, dated September 24, 1999, 
making the term of the Community Development Block 
Grant Program consistent with the City's fiscal year will 
enhance coordinated planning across departments, and 
will allow the Citizen's Committee on Community 
Development to have access to the actual HUD allocation 
figures, instead of using estimates. 

1. The 1999 Community Development Block Grant 
Program of $25,210,055, the Emergency Shelter Grant 
Program of $891,000 and the Home Investment 
Partnership Program of $7,077,000, or a total of 
$33,178,055 for all three programs, was approved by the 
Board of Supervisors on February 17, 1999 (File Numbers 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



15 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

October 13, 1999 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



99-0078, 99-0079 and 99-0049). According to Mr. Roger 
Sanders of the MOCD. the cost of extending the program 
year by three months was estimated by dividing the 
budgets of the programs in question by twelve, to arrive 
at a monthly cost, and multiplying the resulting monthly 
cost by three to arrive at a cost of a three-month 
extension. Attachment I, provided by MOCD, details the 
estimated cost of extending each program. Mr. Sanders 
reports that the final cost of extending the program year 
will likely be less, after MOCD finishes negotiating 
extensions of each program with the individual program 
providers. 

2. Attachment II is a memorandum provided by Mr. 
Sanders explaining the circumstances of the availability 
of the unexpended balances that are being used to extend 
the 1999 Community Development Program for three 
months. 



Recommendation: Approve the proposed resolution. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

16 



Attachme nt- I 

Mayors Office of Community Development and Mayor's Office of Hnn^n„ Paoo T ^TS — o — 

L999 CDBG. ESC and HOME Pnoposed Expends Scheie for J U ,y ,st - June 30. ISSZip , of 3 «J£*L ^ 3 




P3.26 2 of 
Mayors Office of Community Development and Mayor's OITice of Housing 

1999 CDBG. ESG and HOME Proposed Expenditure Schedule for July 1st - June 30Ui Program Year Page 2 of 3 9/24/99 2 42 PM 



RFP I P;m I Mn I 



|0SD |Lavcnder Youth Recreation and Information Center l LYRJC1 
|05H iLEAP/OoNet 



PS 



|05C ILezal Assistant:; to the Eidcriv 

lOSM iLvon-Marnn Women's Health Services 



|PS |05D IMission Educauon Proiecs. Inc 



IPS 



|05H IMission Hiring Hail. Inc. 



IPS |0SH IMission '.anguagc and Vocational School. Inc. 
IPS |05D IMission Learning Center (Readine Clinic) 

|05D IMission Neighborhood Caters 



IPS 



IPS 



|05M |New Leaf Services 



IPS 



|05C iNihonmachi Lczal Outreach 



|PS |05O INonhcm California Coalition for Immigrant Rjghts l Muicn 
|PS |05H | Northern California Service League 



IPS |05B j Rehabilitation Services of Northern California 



IPS 



1 5 H | Renaissance Parents o f Success 



|05H iSamoan Community Development Center. Inc. 
|05A |Se!f-Heio for the Eidcriv 



|05A |Self-HelD for the Elderlv 



|0SM |SF Child Abuse Prevention Center-Talk Line 
|05D |SF Educational Services __ 



|05C |SF Neighborhood Lezal .Assistance Foundation 



IPS 



05 



I Southwest Communirv Corporation 



(PS |05D |St. John's Educational Thresholds Center 



IPS 



|05G |Sl Vincent de Paul Sociery of SF 



IPS 



03 



I Swords to Plowshares 



|PS |05K. ITenderloin Housing Clinic. Inc. 



|PS |05J ITides Center/St. Peter's Housing Committee 



IPS |05J ITides Center/The Housing Rights Commir.ee 



|PS |05H | Vietnamese Community Center 



/|PS |05H IVisitacion Vallev JET 



| PS |05D IVVest Bav Pilioino Multi-Service Corp 
(PS |03L I Whitnev Young Child Development Center 
|PS |05H |Youne Community Developers 



|05D | Youth For Service 



Economic Development 



I ED 



|1S8 I.AJDS Benefits Counselors (ABO 



| ED 1 1SB iColumbia Park Bovs & Girls Club 



|ED 1 13B lJuma Ventures 



I ED |1SB | Juma Ventures 



lED 1 183 IMission Economic Development Ass< 
| ED 1 1 S3 I MOCD Economic Development Pool 



ED 



111 



I ED jlS 



I Private IndusTjy Council of San Franc-.sco. lr 



| SF League of Urban Gardeners (SLUG) 



| ED 1 1 SB | South of Market Foundation 



I ED 



1 1SB lUrban Economic Development Corporation 



3 Mootha ICommeni 



Microenterpriae Asssuncg 



|MEA |13C ICareer Resources Deveiooment Center 



30.0001 



2.5001 



7.5001 



610001 



5.16" 



15.5001 



'<) 0001 



15001 



.5001 



.4651 



6.4551 



19J66I 



60.0001 



5.0001 



15.0001 



118.7381 



9.8951 



29.6851 



214.1001 



17.8421 



IMPS llSC IChildren's Council of SF 



|MEA llSC iCommunitv Vocational Ent 



|MEA I ISC I Family Service Agencv 



w|MEA llSC | SF Renaissance 



IMEA llSC I Southeast .Asian Community Center 
|MEA llSC IWomen's initiative for Self Employment 



|MEA llSC | Wu Yee Children's Services 

I I I 



Adjninjstranoa 



I ADM 



IController (Audit/Indirect Costs^ 



53.5251 



106.5751 



8.8811 



26.644| 



40.0001 



10.0001 



55.0001 



4.5831 



13.750 



916401 



7201 



23.1601 



50.0001 



4.!67| 



115001 



M X»| 



5.667| 



17.0001 



43.0001 



10.7501 



133.0421 



11.0871 



261| 



75.0001 



6.2501 



11750 



50.3801 



4.1981 



.5951 



10.000 



15001 



7.5001 



315001 



17081 



8.1251 



50.00D I 



4.167| 



115001 



41.7001 



3.4751 



10.4251 



50.0001 



I2J00 



25.2001 



11001 



6.3001 



45.0001 



3.7501 



11.2501 



40 K» I 



.3331 



10.000 



87.4501 



7.2S8I 



21.8631 



>l.571| 



16311 



7.893 1 



80.0001 



6.667| 



20.0001 



68.5551 



5.7131 



17.1391 



100.0001 



25.0001 



50.0001 



4.167| 



1 2.5001 



.1601 



6.4301 



19.2901 



75.0001 



6.2501 



18.7501 



10.0001 



2.5001 



01 



75.000 



6.2501 



18.7501 



30.0001 



2.5001 



500| 



:• o.ooo i 



15001 



5001 



to oool 



10.0001 



241.734 



20.1451 



5C 134 



493.0001 



70.0001 



5.8331 



17.5001 



130.0001 



10.8331 



315001 



50.000 



4.167| 



115001 



211J00I 



7.6081 



5182 



100.0001 



L3: 



25.0001 



30.0001 



_500l 



.5001 



41.142! 



3.4291 



101861 



SO. 000 1 



20.0001 



100.1001 



.0251 



115.0001 



9.5831 



2S.-50I 



"4.0001 



I0.335| 



1999 CDBG. ESG and HO^^f."^ C °^ Bm ^ ^'"P™™ »d Mayor's Office of Housin. 



Attachment I 
Pa^e 3 of 3 




Attachment II 

10-07-1999 2:04PM FROM MAYOR' S HOMELESS OFC 415 252 3118 P - 1 



MAYOR'S OFFICE OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 



FAX MEMORANDUM 



TO: James Edison 

252-0461 

FROM: Roger Sanders 

RE: Amending FY 

DATE/TIME: October 7, 1999 

NUMBER OF PAGES (including cover) 1 

Explanation for Schedule of CDBG Uncommitted Balances 

Each year the Board of Supervisors approves an award amount for each project receiving 
Community Development Block Grant funds These awards may be for multiple year activity 
especially for capital/construction projects. Some agencies do not expend the entire award 
amount either because the funds were not needed or they could not be used prior to the 
termination date of the contract. These unused funds are returned to a reserved pool (earn 1 
forward uncommitted balances) to fund other activities. 

The City obtains HUD approval for expending these reserved pool funds by amending the "Final 
Proposal and Action Plan for the Community Development Block Grant, Emergency Shelter 
Grant and Home Investment Partnership Programs," or, by including these funds in the following 
vears "Final Proposal and Action Plan" Either action requires Board approval. 



25 Van Neas Avenue. Suh« 700 • San Francisco. CA 94102 • (41S) 252-3100 • FAX (413) 2520110 



20 



Memo to the Finance and Labor Committee 

October 13, 1999 Meeting of the Finance and Labor Committee 



Item 8 - File 99-1852 

Department: 

Item: 



Location: 

Purposes of Lease 
Modifications: 



Airport Commission 

Resolution approving modifications to the Airline/Airport 
Lease and Use Agreements between the City and eight 
airlines to allow chese airlines to relocate their 
international flight operations to the new International 
Terminal Building at the San Francisco International 
Airport. 

New International Terminal Building (ITB) at the Airport 



The proposed resolution would modify the existing Lease 
and Use Agreements with the eight airlines listed below. 
The existing Lease and Use Agreements were approved 
by the Board of Supervisors in 1981. The lease 
modifications would permit the Airport to: 

(a) relocate the eight airlines' international flight 
operations to the new ITB from the current 
International Terminal, which will then be converted 
for domestic flights. The current International 
Terminal is referred to in this report as the Central 
Terminal Building (CTB); 

(b) change certain types of airline rental space from 
exclusive use to joint use; 

(c) employ procedures for reducing, relocating, and/or 
reallocating exclusive use space in certain 
circumstances; 

(d) preserve the rights of the eight airlines with Lease and 
Use Agreements to exclusive use space approximately 
equal to the exclusive use space they will be 
relinquishing in the CTB when they move to the new 
ITB; 

(e) terminate a lease if an airline voluntarily ceases its 
international flight operations at the Airport, 
contingent on Board of Supervisors approval of such 
lease terminations; and 

(f) permit United Airlines to lease increased exclusive use 
space in the North Terminal Building. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



21 



Memo to the Finance and Labor Committee 

October 13, 1999 Meeting of the Finance and Labor Committee 



Lessor: 



Lessees: 



City and County of San Francisco by and through the 
Airport Commission. 

Alaska Airlines 
China Airlines 
Japan Airlines Co., LTD 
Mexicana Airlines 
Northwest Airlines 
Philippine Airlines, Inc. 
Singapore Airlines 
United Airlines 



Square Footage: 



There are three sets of space being leased: (1) 676,260 
square feet of joint use space in the new ITB, (2) 93,594 
square feet of exclusive use space in the new ITB, and (3) 
451,492 square feet of United Airlines' exclusive use space 
in the North Terminal Building. 



(1) Joint use space in the new ITB: According to Ms. 
Dorothy Schimke of the Airport, "joint use space" is 
airline rental space in a facility owned by the Airport 
which is leased to more than one airline for the shared 
use of all the airlines leasing that space. In the new ITB, 
26 airlines will collectively lease 676.260 square feet of 
joint use space. These 26 airlines comprise (a) the eight 
airlines listed above, and (b) 18 other airlines. The 
Airport's proposal to enter into Lease and Operating 
Agreements with those 18 other airlines is the subject of a 
separate resolution (see Item 9, File 99-1853, of this 
report to the Finance and Labor Committee). 

The 26 airlines will pay rent for this 676,260 square feet 
of joint use space in accordance with Airport rates and 
charges, as set out in the Lease and Use Agreements. 
This joint use space is divided into the rental categories 
shown in Attachment I, provided by the Airport. 

Attachment I shows (a) an estimated 548.691 square foot, 
or approximately 430 percent, increase in the joint use 
space to be leased by the 26 airlines, from the current 
127,569 square feet of joint use space in the CTB to the 
676.260 square feet of joint use space in the new ITB, and 
(b) an estimated S1S.946.802. or approximately 178 
percent, increase in the rent to be paid by those 26 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



22 



Memo to the Finance and Labor Committee 

October 13, 1999 Meeting of the Finance and Labor Committee 



airlines, from an estimated $10,627,232 in FY 1999-2000 
to an estimated $29,574,034 in FY 2000-2001. 

As Alaska Airlines will only use the new ITB for 
international arrivals from Mexico, it will be a joint use 
space lessee for 360,818 square feet of the total 676,260 
square feet of joint use space. Therefore Alaska Airlines 
will be a joint use lessee for just the baggage claim, 
Federal Inspection Service, and inbound baggage 
unloading areas, and any other joint use spaces directly 
related to international arrivals. The amount of 360,818 
square feet represents approximately 53.4 percent of the 
total joint use space available. 

(2) Exclusive use space in the new ITB: Exclusive 
use space in the new ITB can consist of (a) airline ticket, 
baggage service, ramp operations, and administrative 
offices, (b) VIP clubrooms, and/or (c) other support space. 
The eight airlines will rent the amounts of exclusive use 
space in the new ITB as set forth in Attachment II, 
provided by the Airport. Attachment II shows (a) an 
estimated 24,048 square foot, or approximately 34.6 
percent, increase in the exclusive use space to be leased 
by the eight airlines, from the current 69,546 square feet 
of exclusive use space in the CTB to the 93,594 square 
feet of exclusive use space in the new ITB, and (b) an 
estimated S895.233, or approximately 16 percent, 
decrease in the rent to be paid by those eight airlines for 
their exclusive use space, from an estimated $5,600,856 in 
FY 1999-2000 to an estimated $4,705,623 in FY 2000- 
2001. According to Ms. Schimke, the rental rates are 
calculated on a cost recovery basis, as prescribed in the 
Lease and Use Agreement and explained in Attachment 
VI. 

(3) United Airlines exclusive use space in the North 
Terminal Building: The modification to United 
Airlines' Lease and Use Agreement will also cover an 
increase of 116.939 square feet, or approximately 35 
percent, in the exclusive use space leased by United 
Airlines in the North Terminal Building, from 334,553 
square feet to 451.492 square feet. This 35 percent 
increase in exclusive use space is to provide adequate 
space for United Airlines' new automated baggage system 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

23 



Memo to the Finance and Labor Committee 

October 13, 1999 Meeting of the Finance and Labor Committee 

for its domestic flight operations at the North Terminal 
Building (see Comment No. 8 below). The additional 
space is primarily Category IV baggage handling areas 
which United Airlines has taken over incrementally as it 
installed its new baggage system. According to Ms. 
Schimke, the Airport will be billing United Airlines for 
this additional space retroactively to July of 1999. As a 
result of this additional United Airlines rental space in 
the North Terminal Building, the Airport expects to 
realize from United Airlines additional rental revenue of 
$3,994,608 in FY 1999-2000. and $2,365,967 m FY 2000- 
2001. 

Annual Airline 

Lease Revenue: The Airport estimates that it will realize $37,161,803 in 

airline lease revenue in FY 2000-2001 from the new ITB's 
total airline rental space from all of the 26 airlines. Of 
this amount, the Airport will realize an estimated 
S29,574.034, or approximately 79.6 percent, from the 
676,260 square feet of joint use space leased to all 26 
airlines with international flight operations, as shown in 
Attachment I. Of the estimated balance of $7,587,769, or 
approximately 20.4 percent, which the Airport estimates 
that it will realize from rental of exclusive use space, an 
estimated $4,705,623 will be paid by the eight airlines 
with Lease and Use Agreements (as shown in Attachment 
II), and an estimated $2.8S2.146 will be paid by the 18 
airlines with Lease and Operating Agreements (as shown 
in Attachment II of Item 9, File 99-1853, in this report to 
the Finance and Labor Committee). 

The table below compares the estimated FY 2000-2001 
airline lease revenues from the new ITB with the 
estimated airline lease revenues from the CTB in FY 
1999-2000. Overall, the Airport anticipates a 

$19,082,405. or 106 percent, increase in airline lease 
revenues in FY 2000-2001 from the 26 airlines which 
have international flight operations at the Airport. (This 
table covers Items 8 and 9. Files 99-1852 and 99-1853. of 
this report to the Finance and Labor Committee.) 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

24 



Memo to the Finance and Labor Committee 

October 13, 1999 Meeting of the Finance and Labor Committee 





CTB 

Square 

Feet 


Estimated 

ITB 

Square 

Feet 


Estimated % 
Difference in 
Square Feet 


Estimated 
FY 1999- 

2000 Lease 
Revenue 


Estimated 
FY 2000- 

2001 Lease 
Revenue 


Estimated % 

Difference in 

Lease 

Revenue 


Joint Use Space 


127.569 


676.2P0 




430.0% 


$10,627,232 


S29.574.034 


178% 


Lease & Use 
Agreement 
Exclusive Use 
Space 


69,546 


93,594 




35% 


5,600.856 


4,705,623 


(16%) 


Lease & 
Operating 
Agreement 
Exclusive Use 
Space 


21,284 


55,126 




159% 


1.851,310 


2,882,146 


56% 


TOTAL 


218,399 


824,980 




278% 


S18.079.398 


$37,161,803 


106% 



The Airport also expects, as a result of the increase in the 
United Airlines exclusive use space in the North Terminal 
Building, to realize an additional S3, 994,608 in airline 
lease revenue in FY 1999-2000, and $2,365,967 in FY 
2000-2001 from United Airlines. 

Approval of both Files 99-1852 and 99-1853 will result in 
total estimated airline lease revenues for the Airport of 
$37,161,803 from the new ITB in FY* 2000-2001. This 
represents an estimated increase of $19,082,405 over the 
estimated airline lease revenues for the Airport of 
$18,079,398 from the CTB in FY 1999-2000. This 
increase comprises the estimated additional (a) 
$18,946,802 for joint use space in the new ITB, and (b) 
$1,030,S36 for Lease and Operating Agreement airlines' 
exclusive use space in the new ITB (as described in Item 
9, File 99-1853 of this report to the Finance and Labor 
Committee), offset by (c) a decrease of $895,233 in the 
revenues from Lease and Use Agreement airlines' 
exclusive use space in the new ITB. Furthermore, 
approval of File 99-1852 will result in additional airline 
lease revenue for the Airport of an estimated S2, 365,967 
in FY 2000-2001 fiom United Airlines' increased exclusive 
use space in the North Terminal Building. The Airport 
therefore estimates that it will receive additional airline 
lease revenues in the amount of $21,448,372 in FY 2000- 
2001. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



25 



Memo to the Finance and Labor Committee 

October 13, 1999 Meeting of the Finance and Labor Committee 



Term of 
Modified Leases: 



Ri?ht of Renewal: 



Each of the proposed modifications to the Lease and Use 
Agreements between the City and the eight airlines will 
take effect upon full execution by the parties and final 
approval by the Board of Supervisors. All eight Lease and 
Use Agreements terminate on June 30, 2011. 

None. 



Maintenance and 
Operations: 



The respective responsibilities of the City and the eight 
airlines for maintenance and operations are contained in 
Attachment IV, provided by the Airport. Ms. Schimke 
states that the Airport's airline rental space rates are 
designed to cover all of the Airport's maintenance and 
operations overhead costs which are not covered by 
revenue from the Airport's concessions or other non- 
airline revenues. 



Comments: 



1. As part of the Airport's Master Plan Expansion 
Program, the Airport is constructing a new ITB which is 
scheduled for completion in May of 2000. All 
international flight operations currently conducted by the 
26 airlines in the CTB. including those of the eight 
airlines under this subject resolution, will be relocated to 
the new ITB. allowing the CTB to be used as a third 
domestic terminal, according to Mr. Gary Franzella of the 
Airport. Mr. Franzella states that the reassignment of 
the CTB as a third terminal for domestic flight operations 
and the opening of the new ITB as a fourth terminal will 
enable the Airport to increase the total number of 
passengers that the Airport can handle from an estimated 
40 million in 1999. to an estimated 51 million in 2006, an 
increase of 27.5 percent. 

2. Of the 26 airlines which will relocate their 
international flight operations to the new ITB. eight 
airlines, which are the subject of this resolution, have 
existing Lease and Use Agreements, effective July 1. 
1981. These Lease and L'se Agreements were previously 
approved by the Board of Supervisors. They are due to 
expire on June 30. 2011. Proposed modifications to these 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



26 



Memo to the Finance and Labor Committee 

October 13, 1999 Meeting of the Finance and Labor Committee 



eight Lease and Use Agreements are the subject of this 
resolution. 

3. Of the 26 airlines which will relocate their 
international flight operations to the new ITB, 18 airlines 
are the subject of Item 9, File 99-1853, of this October 13 
report to the Finance and Labor Committee. 

4. According to Mr. Franzella, in negotiating the 
proposed modifications to the Lease and Use Agreements, 
the Airport had the following objectives: 

(a) To relocate the eight airlines' international flight 
operations from the CTB to the new ITB; 

(b) To apply a joint use approach to as much space in the 
new ITB as possible, to maintain flexibility to address 
changes in the airline industry and accommodate 
increased international traffic demands; 

(c) To provide a mechanism for reducing, relocating, 
and/or reallocating exclusive use space, as described in 
Attachment III, provided by the Airport; 

(d) To preserve the rights of the eight airlines with Lease 
and Use Agreements to exclusive use space 
approximately equal to the exclusive use space they 
will be relinquishing in the CTB when they move to 
the new ITB. The replacement exclusive use space 
will be designated as "Entitlement Space" which may 
only be reduced or relocated through mutual 
agreement or the Airport's Right of Reaccess, as 
described in Attachment III; 

(e) To designate any exclusive use space under an 
airline's Lease and Use Agreement that is in excess of 
(i) the exclusive use space relinquished by that airline 
in the CTB, and (ii) VIP clubroom space, as "Non- 
Entitlement Space", which could be reduced, relocated, 
and/or reallocated in accordance with the reallocation 
procedures described in Attachment III; 

(f) To be able to terminate an airline's lease if the lessee 
voluntarily ceases international flight operations at 
the Airport, contingent on Board of Supervisors 
approval of such lease terminations: and 

(g) To permit United Airlines to make changes to its 
exclusive use space in the North Terminal Building to 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Tj 



Memo to the Finance and Labor Committee 

October 13, 1999 Meeting of the Finance and Labor Committee 



accommodate expansion and modernization of its 
baggage system and other operating space. 

5. Under the proposed resolution, the Airport would be 
authorized to modify- the allocation of exclusive use space 
in the new ITB without further approval from the Board 
of Supervisors, as long as the modifications are consistent 
with the provisions contained in Attachment III. All 
other modifications to airlines' allocations of exclusive use 
space would require Board of Supervisors approval. 

6. Under the existing Lease and Use Agreements with 
the subject eight airlines, joint use space includes only 
gate hold-rooms, baggage handling and baggage claim 
areas, and Federal Inspection Service areas. The joint 
use space approach is being expanded in the new ITB. 
According to Mr. Franzella, all of the new ITB's 168 ticket 
counters will be designated as joint use spaces, compared 
with only eight of the 111 ticket counters currently 
designated as joint use space in the CTB. The remaining 
103 CTB ticket counters are exclusive use spaces under 
the existing Lease and Use Agreements. Mr. Franzella 
also states that all 24 gate hold-rooms in the new ITB will 
be designated as joint use spaces, whereas in the CTB 
United Airlines has exclusive use space rights over five of 
the CTB's ten gate hold-rooms. 

7. As explained in Attachment V, provided by the 
Airport, scheduling of joint use space in the new ITB will 
be managed, under the Airport's oversight, by SFO 
Terminal Equipment Company. LLC (SFOTEC), a 
company to be formed by the 26 airlines. 

8. United Airlines' Lease and Use Agreement also 
provides for a modification in relation to United Airlines' 
leasing of exclusive use space in the North Terminal 
Building space. This is primarily the result of United 
Airlines' installation of a new automated baggage system 
under certain North Terminal Building gates, in spaces 
that had not been previously leased to any airline. The 
space is now primarily designated as Category IV baggage 
handling areas. As a result of this additional United 
Airlines rental space in the North Terminal Building, the 
Airport expects to realize from United Airlines an 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

28 



Memo to the Finance and Labor Committee 

October 13, 1999 Meeting of the Finance and Labor Committee 



additional $3,994,608 in airline lease revenues in FY 
1999-2000, and $2,365,967 in FY 2000-2001. 

9. Execution copies of the proposed modifications to the 
Lease and Use Agreements were sent to the airlines on 
September 2, 1999. Final approval is contingent on the 
Human Rights Commission's determination of each 
airline's compliance with, or exemption from, the 
requirements of San Francisco's Equal Benefits 
Ordinance. Ms. Schimke advises that all eight airlines 
are currently in various stages of obtaining certification of 
their compliance with, or exemption from, that 
ordinance's requirements, and that the Airport 
anticipates that all eight will comply. 

10. According to Mr. Franzella, a phased occupancy of 
the subject space is commencing on November 1, 1999 at 
which time United Airlines will be able to begin tenant 
improvements of its exclusive use spaces in the new ITB. 
All the other airlines which have exclusive use spaces will 
be able to commence their tenant improvements no later 
than January 1, 2000. As previously noted, the new ITB 
is scheduled to open in May of 2000. While the lessees 
are not required to make a minimum investment per 
square foot in the tenant improvement construction of 
their exclusive use spaces, they are required to meet the 
requirements of the relevant construction codes. 
Northwest Airlines and United Airlines will construct 
their own tenant improvements. China Airlines and 
Singapore Airlines will construct their VIP clubrooms. All 
other tenant improvements for Lease and Use Agreement 
airlines will be performed under a consolidated contract 
awarded by the Airport's Airline Liaison Office in order to 
minimize potential coordination problems. Construction 
of all joint use space will be the responsibility of the 
Airport. 

11. The airlines' payment of rents for the new ITB space 
will commence on the date the new ITB is open and 
operational, as determined by the Airport Director. On 
that date, the airlines' rental payments for the CTB cease. 
Under the proposed modifications to their Lease and Use 
Agreements, the eight airlines will have up to 90 days 
after they begin paying rent for their new ITB space to 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

29 



Memo to the Finance and Labor Committee 

October 13, 1999 Meeting of the Finance and Labor Committee 

remove their equipment from their exclusive use space in 
the CTB. 

12. All lessees will pay rent for their new ITB space in 
accordance with the .Airport's rates and charges for airline 
rental space. These are determined annually by the 
Airport using the rates and charges methodology 
prescribed in the Lease and Use Agreements, as 
previously approved by the Board of Supervisors, and 
contained in Attachment VI, provided by the Airport. The 
division between the airlines of the rent payable for the 
new ITB's joint use space will be determined on the basis 
of a "Joint Use Formula" as explained in Attachment MI, 
provided by the Airport. 

13. In summary, the Airport estimates that approval of 
both Files 99-1852 and 99-1853 will result in total 
estimated airline lease revenues for the Airport of 
$37,161,803 from the new ITB in FY 2000-2001, an 
increase of $19,082,405 over the estimated airline lease 
revenues for the Airport of $18,079,398 from the CTB in 
FY 1999-2000. Furthermore, approval of File 99-1852 
will result in additional airline lease revenue for the 
Airport of an estimated $2,365,967 in FY 2000-2001 from 
United Airlines' increased exclusive use space in the 
North Terminal Building. The Airport therefore 
estimates that it will receive additional airline lease 
revenues in the amount of S21.44S.372 in FY" 2000-2001. 

Recommendation: Approve the proposed resolution, contingent on the 

airlines' compliance with the City's Equal Benefits 
Ordinance. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

30 



Attachment I 



o 
o 

CO 

Q. 
CO 

<D 
V) 

c 

o 



c 

O 
tf> 

'~Z 

ra 

Q. 

£ 
o 
o 

w 

■1— I 

c 
o 

E 

0) 

CD 

'_ 
< 

c/> 

■o 

c 

(0 

0> 
V) 
CO 




O" 


<u 


^^. 


u 




c: 




a; 








0) 






£ 


Q 




a> 


o 


o 


co 


-<3- 


co 


T — 


r-~ 


T — 


T— 


■<1- 


ro 



U0 
CO 



CO 

co 






co 

CO 
CD 



o 

CM 

o" 
r-- 



CM 
CO 

oq 

^r" 

cm" 



CO 
CM 

°1 
CO 

CM 



uo 
co 

co" 
co 

CO 

Tf" 
69- 



o 

CO 



CM 
CO 

CO 

CM 

uo 



CO 

co" 

CO 
CM 



CO 
CO 



CO 
CM 

o 
ro" 

CM 



CO 
CM 
CM* 

■<* 



CD 
CM 

co" 
a> 
0) 

■<*" 



oo 

CM 
CO 

CO 

CO 



co 

O 

in" 
io 

o 



o 

69- 



CO 
CO 

co" 
co 



co 

CO 
CO 

M-" 

CO 



CD 


c 


her 
cess 


1* 


CD 
C 






en 




- Baggage claim; 
pection Service; o 
eas, 3rd floor and 
floor passenger ac 




■o 




c 

a 

— > 

'o 

CO 

CD 


E 
o 
o 
-S 
o 

05 

75 

O g 
< a) 


o -^ 

O T3 
C C 
0) CD 

CD O 
^ O 

• c 

= CM 


C 

co 

-C 
CD 
O 
CO 

o 

CI 

co 
m 

> 


CD 
CO 

o 

CJ 

c 

CD 
CD 

O 

> 

CT 




O 


1 S ° 8 


L c « (3 


ts 


£• 


-J 
< 


D 


O 0} 


o 


o 


a 


s3 o> -. 


a c 3 a 


?™ 




O <D 


o 

1- 




53 o <b 






o u 


CO 


cS Si 


~ T3 c O 
■ <U = ^3 

O Ll_ .2. CD 


ro * 
O 5 


ro £ 
O co 


CJ CO 



CO = 
£ 2 

.Q a; 

2& 
-2 -o 
-2 c 
CO co 

o * 
Q- co 



- .2> 
~ CO 



2^8 

o 5 6 

CO o 

— Q) O 

o .£ cm 

e-~2 > 

~ ta u. 

< « * 

03 t- O 

£ ID : 
~ _C CO 

ȣE 

.2 T3 ° 

sS"i 

CD - co 

a <2 -) 
o c Z. 

- CD C 

a E o 
S cu -> 

1*1 

O r- 

'— 03 C 
CD CO ^j 

E "3 3 

CD "O "* 



CD -O ° 

c c 2 

— co ro 

£ HJ- 

5 co £• 

CO ® = 

CD - 1 CO 

= £ 3 

CO * CO 

en M O 

CN « 03 

03 | £ 

= 'CO O 

03 03 
CO CD ~ 
CO r- CD 

o X"5 

>. CO ro 

1st 

ill 

o 5 co 

u o — 

« "° s 

— c o 
03 a. 

o ~ % 
CO CO < 

g-E a 

03 O S 

S c o) 

3 — 03 



.£ 3 
o c 



03 f2 y) 

5 • S 

C > 03 

o) 2 E 

X) -2 03 

CO CO 03 

S 2 a 

Q. = < 



I 8 

CO CD 



03 CO 

5 ~ 



CO 2 m ~ 



CO Q3 

5 | * s-o 



s 

o 



31 



Attachment TT 





o 

ro 
o. 
c/) 

a) 
> 

J3 

O 
X 

LLI 



C 

o 

C/5 
*~Z 

03 

Q. 

E 
o 
o 

CO 

c 
_■ 

E 
o 

— 

en 
< 

c/> 

=) 

■a 
c 
co 

a> 

CO 

co 

0) 



o 
co 

"i_ 

cj 
E 
o 
o 



UJ 



CQ 



s 



H 
O 



g 

| 

eg 



Ifl 


r-- °^ co 

c^ _• ^ 

mo t- 


C7) 
CM "<t 


O 


m 


CO 



<° ~. :U o o => o o 

2 cn^ 0, *oo>o ^ 
in ^ v o n t- o co 



OCO'i-CDCMt-COCNI 
I-. CN t- CD_ -<T 0) TT 

^ t- CO O Q t" tO 

cd cm cd in cm en ■<- 

CM ID T- Tf CO CO CD 
tT7 try wv^ try t^T t/7 «. | 



m 



CO 00 



OrOI 

CO Tf CD CO t- 

•<3-_ a) m_ h- in co co_ 

o" co" cm* ■<-* in co" o" 

05 N- ID CM CO C7) O 

fe9- CM 0_ CO rr CO -"S" m 

Kfj . C// v/ Cr/ t^"r a. 



© 



c 



C/3 
CD 

c 

C/3 = 

CD .i= 

£ < 

.i= CO 

< m 

c O 
CO ~ 

c 

- 



CO Q) ^i 

.= c — 

u "= 5 - CD 



c o < 



.c c cp_ 



^ iS^^»oZ.E c 



OCOCncOQQOCN "J 

cmocdcoot-co en 

o_ co co_ i^._ cn co_ h-_ in 

in" ct>" co" co" co" co" co" co" 

m o 



NCNISQ^CNICOCNI CO 

CMinNr-COOCNCN f 

cd r- -rf o_ n-_ 'r in in in 

co" co" t* tj* -<3-" in" co" c" 

t- CO co 



*> Z CL CO =3 



c - 



5 -= 



B 



32 



ROM SFIA DEPARTS 



Airport 
Coram oiioo 

City and County 
ol San Francisco 
Willia L Brown, Jr. 
Mayer 

Henry E. Berman 
Prasident 

Larry Maizoia 
Vice President 

Michael S StrunsKy 

Linda S Crayton 

Caryl tto 

JOHN L MARTIN 
Airocrt Diractor 



OF AVIATION MANAGEMENT (WED) 10. 6*99 10 : 04/ST. 10 : 02/NO. 4861 71 31 88 P 5 

Attachment III 
Page 1 of 2 




San Francisco International Airport 



GATEWAY TO THE H.C1F IC 

REDUCTION. RELOCATON. AND/OR REALLOCATION 
OF EXCLUSIVE USE SPACE 



A. When required by a significant shift in market share or to accommodate a new 
airline, the Airport can reduce, relocate, and/or reallocate exclusive use space in 
accordance with the procedures described below. 

B. Airline Ticket Office (ATO) Procedures 

• ATOs arc the ticket counter support offices located on Floors 3 and 3M of the 
newITB. 

• ATO space may be reduced, relocated, and/or reallocated in conjunction with 
reallocation of ticket counter preferential use assignments, which are decided 
by SFOTEC, with Airport oversight, based on flight activity and new JTB 
Ticket Counter Management Protocols. 

• A key objective of the new ITB Ticket Counter Management Protocols is to 
provide each airline with a regular check-in location, with the maximum 
number of positions desired (if available). 

• Reduction, relocation, and/or reallocation of ATO space held by airlines under 
Lease and Use Agreements will occur only after the City has determined thai 
(1) there is no unassigned ATO space on Floors 3 or 3M, (2) there is no ATO 
space that may be recovered for reassignment from airlines with space permits, 
(3) there is no ATO space that may be recovered for reassignment from airlines 
with Lease and Operating Agreements, and (4) the reduction, relocation, and/or 
reallocation of leased ATO space will not reduce any affected Lease and Use 
Agreement lessee's space below a minimum operating unit. 

C. Airport's Right of Rcacccss to Entitlement Space 

• "Entitlement Space" refers to (a) that portion of new JTB exclusive use space 
which is approximately the size of an airline's existing exclusive use space in 
the CTB under a Lease and Use Agreement, except that VTP clubrooms are 
entirely entitlement space, whether they are larger than CTB VIP areas or not. 

• The Airport may recover Entitlement Space through Right of Reaccess only 
when the relevant lessee's available international seats have decreased by more 
than 50 percent in a 12-month period versus the benchmark year of FY 1999- 
2000. 

• The Airport may rcacccss square footage in each exclusive use space category 
up to the percentage reduction, subject to minimum operating requirements. 

SAN FRANCISCO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT . P.O. BOX 8097 . SAN FRANCISCO CAUFORNIA 9413 . TELEPHONE 1650) 7945000 • FAX 1650' 794-5005 



33 



FROM SFIA DEPARTMENT 0? AVIATION MANAGEMENT (V. T E3; : 0. 6' 99 10:04/ST. 1 i 188 : fi 

_ _ Attachmen t II I, 

Pa S e 2 Page 2 of 2 

• All VIP clubroom space held by the eight airlines is designated as Entitlement 
Space because of the cost of constructing VIP clubrooms. Such space requires 
180 days notice to recover. AJ1 other Entitlement Space requires 90 days notice 
to recover. 

D. Procedures for Non-Entitlement Space 

• "Non-Entitlement Space" refers to all exclusive use space that is not 
"Entitlement Space". 

• To reduce or relocate Non-Enmlement Space, the Airport shall develop and 
present a plan and accompanying rationale to SFOTEC and the impacted 
airlinc(s). Airlines have a 30 day period 

• At the end of the 30 day comment penod, the Airport shall deliver a nouce to 
the airline(s) required to reduce or relocate space in accordance with the plan, 
noting that the plan may have been modified during the review process. 

• Non-Entitlement Space requires 90 days notice to recover. 

E. Buyout Provisions 

• When pursuant to these provisions, rcducuon or relocation of both Entitlement 
and Non-Entidcmem Space is subject to buyout by the Airport of the value of 
the improvements amortized on a straight-line basis over the remaining term of 
the Lease and Use Agreement. If, however, exclusive use space is voluntarily 
surrendered by an airline, then the Airport is not obligated to offer buyout 
compensation. 



3k 



Attachment IV 



_ ' 


'1 


!— 


< 


">, 




u 


< 


1 


'Z 


u 


Z 


"a 


" 


~ 


2 


~z 


< 


< 


— 



u u u u : 



= SI 

= A 

C Ml 



< J > 



ouuuuuuuuu 



uuuuuuuuuu 



uuuouuuuuu 



u u u u u u 



ouuuuo<< : 



U U U U U U i 



u<<<u<<<<u 



<<u<uu<<<<u 



= " s 1 






U O U 1UUUUUO 



u ;ouuu<<<uu 



o — 

1 u 



ea — 

— 2 

— 2? 

c "5 
u o 
U U 


00 

■J 


Cooling of 1 
1 Sewerage 
pply lo Prcm 






c 


co 


s 


c n 

S 5 


e 


5 


| 


35 





a 


<epair and R 

- Claim Devi 

- Conveyors 


co 
J 9 


o 

o 


u 

< 
> 




II 


at 

OO 


at 

E 

U 


£ 

i 


> 


e 

a 


-3 


5 


<3 


M 


BO 






1 u 

c ™ 
> CO 


o "3 

CO c 





§ 

2 


M 

a 


|| 


1 




j 


z 












js 


c/: 
















5 


-£ 


|J8 


e 




00 


7L 
















E 






a 






















.5 


> 












1 


| 


i i 




| 


H 


u 

L 


£ 




i *— 




















y 
































= 


< £ 










J 


_£ 


_ 


: 


B 


-■ 
2 



•rom ?f:a de?a?.tn':nt 0? AVIATION" MANAGEMENT (WEDJIO. 6' 99 10 05 ST : '; 



Attachment V 
Page 1 or 2 



AIRPORT COMMISSION 

SAN FRANCISCO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT 

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 



INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM 



TO: Alan Gibson DATE: October 6, 1 999 

FROM: ^T)Dorothy Schimke, Senior Property Manager 

^ Department of Aviation Management 



SFO Terminal Equipment Company. LLC 



The airlines that will operate at the new International Terminal Building (MB) arc forming a 
limited liability company, SFO Terminal Equipment Company, LLC (SFOTEC). The purpose of 
this company is to operate and maintain certain equipment and joint use space in the ITB and to 
schedule the usage of such joint use equipment and space among airline members and non- 
member users. 



(1) Operation and Mainten ance of Equipment 

Maintenance of certain operating equipment and systems owned by the Airport will be the 
responsibility of SFOTEC. This equipment includes but is not limited to passenger loading 
bridges, the baggage system, the preconditioned air system, the 400 Hz ground power system, 
flight and baggage information display systems and common use telephones at gate podiums and 
ticket counters. 



(2) Gate and Ticket Counter Scheduling 

Gate scheduling: The scheduling of the new ITB's 24 joint use gates will be managed by 
SFOTEC, subject to Airport approval, to maximize the efficient use of those gates. 
Determination of gate usage policy and final resolution of conflicts will rest solely with the 
Airport Director. 

Ticket counter assignment and management: The assignment of the new ITB's 168 joint use 
ticket counters will be managed by SFOTEC, subject to Airport approval, in accordance with 
Ticket Counter Management Protocols designed to maximize the efficient use of those ticket 
counters. Determination of ticket counter usage policy and final resolution of conflicts will rest 
solely with the Airport Director. 



36 



SFIA DEPARTMENT 0? AVIATION MANAGEMENT (WED) 10. 6' 99 10:05/ST. 10:02/NO. 4861718188 ? 10 

Alan Gibson Attachment V 

October 6. 1999 Paee 2 of 2 

Page 2 



(3) Management Services 

Tower operations: The ground movement of aircraft into and out of the new I IB, and within 
non-movement zones designated by the Airport, will be managed by SFOTEC. 

Cleaning and Maintenance: SFOTEC will also manage janitorial services for non-public joint 
use areas, and ramp sweeping. 

Accounting: SFOTEC will be responsible for allocating costs and distributing billings among 
the airline members and non-member users. 



(4) Coordination and Oversig ht 

An Oversight Committee, chaired by the Airport and including both airline and Airport 
representation, will be responsible for setting SFOTEC s missions, addressing issues of mutual 
concern to the Airport and the airlines, and reviewing SFOTEC s performance. 



37 



FROM SFiA DEPARTMENT OF AVIATION MANAGEMENT (TKU)IO. 7' 99 7 : 00/ST. 7 : 00/NO. 43::": 321 fi P 2 

Atrachtnertt: VI ' 
Page 1 of 2 

AIRPORT COMMISSION 

SAN FRANCISCO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT 
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 

MEMORANDUM 



TO: Alan Gibson DATE: October 6, 1999 

FROM: Dorothy Schimke 

Airport Rates and Charges 
Background 

In 1979 a number of airlines filed suii to litigate certain complaints against the City, 
including an allegation that Airport revenues were being unlawfully diverted to the City's 
General Fund. (Federal law prohibits the expenditure of airport revenues for non-airport 
purposes.) In early 1980 the City and the airlines that were parties to the suit entered into 
settlement negotiations that resulted in a detailed Settlement Agreement and an Airline- 
Airport Lease and Use Agreement ("the LU"). Provisions for a substantial restructuring 
of the financial operation of the Airport, including the methodology for calculating 
Airport Rates and Charges, were incorporated into the LU as pan of the ScrJemcnt 
Agreement. 

Calculation of Rates and Charges 

In general, the airlines are obligated to pay terminal building rental rates and landing fees 
in amounts that, when included with all other Airport revenues, will be sufficient to cover 
all annual Airport costs. Rates are adjusted annually. Terminal rate adjustments are 
based on the average cost per square foot of providing, maintaining and operating the 
terminal building areas. 

A simplified outline of the methodology for calculating Airport terminal rents is as 
follows: 

1. Expense Forecasting. .Airport forecasts its expenses, including both operating and 
capital expenses, for the upcoming fiscal year. 

2. Revenue Forecasting. Airport forecasts its non-airline terminal revenues for the 
upcoming fiscal year. 

• Concession revenues 

• Rents from non-airline tenants 

• Other revenues (e.g., interest on unexpended capital funds) 



38 



feOM SFIA DEPARTMENT OF AVIATION MANAGEMENT (TKU)iQ. 7' 99 7:01/ST. 7: 00/NO. 4861718216 P 3 

Attachment VI 
Page 2 of 2 

Alan Gibson 
October 6. 1999 
Pass 2 



3. Annual Service Payment. 15% of Concession revenues goes to City's general fund 
as compensation for indirect services to the Airport. 

4. Calculation. 

• Non-airline revenues (net of Annual Service Payment) are set off against 
projected expenses. 

• Remainder (expenses thai are not covered by non-airline revenues) is divided by 
the total square feat of terminal space rented by airlines to determine average rent 
per square foot, which is then apportioned into five rate categories. 

• The higher the number of square feet rented to airlines, the lower the effective 
rental raie required to recover the terminal costs. 



39 



: ROM ; : :A DEPARTMENT : AVIATION tfANAGIMIXT \ Yi 1 6 : 48/S7 16 '-.' NO. 481 F 2 



Airport 
GflBSMMM 

City and County 
ot San Francisco 

Willie L Brown, J; 
Mayor 

Henry £ Barman 
Prendem 

Larry Manoia 
Vice President 

Michael S Struma 
Lindi S Creyton 
Caryl Ito 




Attachment VII 



San Francisco International Airport 



GATEWAY TO THE PAOnC 

JOINT USE FORMULA FOR THE NEW ITR 

The total charges for each room comprising joint use space shall be divided among the 



Airpon o.r.ctor airlines using the new ITB according to the following formula: 

• Twenty percent of each joint space shall be divided equally among all airlines using 
that joint use space. Since Alaska .Airlines will use only 53.4 percent of the joint 
use spaces, it will pay l/26 tt of the 20 percent payment for those spaces. For all 
other joint use spaces, the remaining 25 airlines will pay 1/25^ each. These 
proportions will change as individual airlines start or cease international flight 
operations at the new ITB. 

• Eighty percent shall be divided as follows. Each airline using the joint use space 
pays that proportion which the number of its passengers enplaning and/or deplaning 
at the new ITB bears to the total number of passengers enplaning and/or deplaning 
at the new ITB. The proportions for each type of joint use space are calculated on 
the following bases: 



Category 


Tvpe of Space 


Tvpe of Passenger 


I 


Ticket counter/gate 
holdroom 


new ITB enplaned passengers 


n 


Baggage claim /Federal 
Inspection Service 


new ITB deplaned passengers 


n 


Other 3 rd floor and 
above, and l" floor 
oassenser access 


new ITB total enplaned and 
deplaned passengers 


m 


Other enclosed, 2 na and 
below 


new ITB total enplaned and 
deplaned passensers 


rv 


Inbound baggage 
handling 


new ITB deplaned passengers 


IV 


Outbound baggage 
handling 


new ITB enplaned passengers 


V 


Other unenclosed 


new ITB total enplaned and 
deplaned passensers 



• If for any reason the number of passengers enplaning and/or deplaning at the new 
1TB in the pnor fiscal year for any of the airlines using the joint use space 
consututc an inappropriate basis for forecasting that airline's passenger volume for 
the year m which the charges are levied, the City can make appropriate adjustments 
in order to equitably apportion the total costs among all of the airlines using such 
joint use space. 

SAN FRANCISCO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT .PC BOX 8W7 . SAN FRANCSCO CALIFORNIA WIS - TELEPHONE 16501 794-SMC • FAX ISSOI 794-5005 



40 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

October 13, 1999 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



Item 9 - File 99-1853 

Department: 

Item: 



Location: 
Purpose of Leases: 



Lessor: 



Lessees: 



Airport Commission 

Resolution approving the terms of new Lease and 
Operating Agreements between the City and 18 airlines 
to allow these airlines to relocate their international flight 
operations to the new International Terminal Building at 
the San Francisco International Airport. 

New International Terminal Building (ITB) at the Airport 

The proposed new Lease and Operating Agreements with 
the 18 airlines listed below would permit the Airport to: 

(a) relocate the 18 airlines' international flight operations 
to the new ITB from the current International 
Terminal, which will then be converted for domestic 
flights. The current International Terminal is referred 
to in this report as the Central Terminal Building 
(CTB); 

(b) change certain types of airline rental space from 
exclusive use to joint use; 

(c) employ procedures for reducing, relocating, and/or 
reallocating exclusive use space in certain 
circumstances; and 

(d) terminate a lease if an airline voluntarily ceases its 
international flight operations at the Airport, 
contingent on Board of Supervisors approval of such 
lease terminations. 

City and County of San Francisco by and through the 
Airport Commission. 

Aeroflot Russian International Airlines 

Air China 

Air France 

Alitalia Airlines 

Asiana Airlines 

All Nippon Airways 

British Airways, PLC 

Cathay Pacific Airways, LTD. 

China Eastern Airlines 

EVA Airways 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



41 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

October 13, 1999 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



8 and 9, Files 99-1852 and 99-1853, of this report to the 
Finance and Labor Committee.) 





CTB 

Square 

Feet 


Estimated 
ITB 

Squ:n ■■■ 
Feet 


Estimated % 
Difference in 
Square Feet 


Estimated 
FY 1999- 

2000 Lease 
Revenue 


Estimated 
FY' 2000- 

2001 Lease 
Revenue 


Estimated % 

Difference in 

Lease 

Revenue 


Joint Use Space 


127,569 


676.2G0 




430 OS 


$10,627,232 


S29.574.034 


178% 


Lease & Use 
Agreement 
Exclusive Use 
Space 


69.546 


93.594 




35% 


5.600.856 


4 705.623 


(16%) 


Lease & 
Operating 
Agreement 
Exclusive Use 
Space 

TOTAL 


21,284 


55.126 




159°. 
278*. 


1.851.310 


2.882.146 


56% 
106% 


218,399 


824.980 


S18.079.398 


S37.161.803 



Approval of both Files 99-1S52 and 99-1853 will result in 
total estimated airline lease revenues for the Airport of 
$37,161,803 from the new ITB in FY 2000-2001. This 
represents an estimated increase of S 19,082,405 over the 
estimated airline lease revenues for the Airport of 
$18,079,398 from the CTB in FY' 1999-2000. This 
increase comprises the estimated additional (a) 
$18,946,802 for joint use space in the new ITB, and (b) 
$1,030,S36 for Lease and Operating Agreement airlines' 
exclusive use space in the new ITB. offset by (c) a 
decrease of SS95,233 in the revenues from Lease and Use 
Agreement airlines' exclusive use space in the new ITB 
(as described in Item S, File 99-1S52, of this report to the 
Finance and Labor Committee). 



Term of Lease 
and Operating 
Agreements: 



Each of the proposed Lease and Operating Agreements 
will take effect upon full execution by the parties and 
final approval by the Board of Supervisors. All 18 Lease 
and Operating Agreements terminate on June 30, 2011, 
which is coterminous with the eight Lease and Use 
Agreements which are the subject of Item 8. File 99-1852, 
of this report to the Finance and Labor Committee. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

44 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

October 13, 1999 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



Right of Renewal: 



None. 



Maintenance and 
Operations: 



Tbe respective responsibilities of the City and the 18 
airlines for maintenance and operations are contained in 
Attachment IV, provided by the Airport. Ms. Schimke 
states that the Airport's airline rental space rates are 
designed to cover all of the Airport's maintenance and 
operations overhead costs which are not covered by 
revenue from the Airport's concessions or other non- 
airline revenues. 



Comments: 



1. As part of the Airport's Master Plan Expansion 
Program, the Airport is constructing a new ITB which is 
scheduled for completion in May of 2000. All 
international flight operations currently conducted by the 
26 airlines in the CTB, including those of the 18 airlines 
under this subject resolution, will be relocated to the new 
ITB, allowing the CTB to be used as a third domestic 
terminal, according to Mr. Gary Franzella of the Airport. 
Mr. Franzella states that the reassignment of the CTB as 
a third terminal for domestic flight operations and the 
opening of the new ITB as a fourth terminal will enable 
the Airport to increase the total number of passengers the 
Airport can handle from an estimated 40 million in 1999, 
to an estimated 51 million in 2006, an increase of 27.5 
percent. 

2. Of the 26 airlines which will relocate their 
international flight operations to the new ITB, 18 airlines, 
which are the subject of this resolution, are expected to 
sign new Lease and Operating Agreements with the City. 
According to Ms. Schimke, none of the 18 subject airlines 
currently have leases equivalent to the Lease and 
Operating Agreements proposed by this resolution. 
Whereas most airlines that were tenants of the Airport in 
1981 signed Lease and Use Agreements with the Airport, 
thereby controlling most of the available exclusive use 
airline rental space, airlines that became tenants 
subsequently were obliged to make other arrangements. 
As a result, the 18 subject airlines either (a) obtained 
month-to-month permits for the small amounts of space 
not originally leased under Lease and Use Agreement, or 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

45 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

October 13, 1999 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



for space which has subsequently been surrendered by- 
airlines with Lease and Use Agreements, (b) subleased 
from Lease and Use Agreement airlines, or (c) entered 
into "handling agreements" pursuant to alliances, code- 
shares, or similar marketing or ground handling 
agreements, with airlines which have space under either 
Lease and Use Agreements or space permits. Ms. 
Schimke states that such subleases, handling agreements, 
or space permits were not subject to Board of Supervisors 
approval because only leases in excess of ten years and/or 
$1,000,000 in value are subject to Board of Supervisors 
approval. 

According to Ms. Schimke. under the proposed resolution, 
the new Lease and Operating Agreements would benefit 
the Airport because: (a) they put the Airport into a direct 
relationship with the airlines, rather than an indirect 
relationship as is currently the case with airlines that 
have subleases or handling agreements; (b) they provide 
the Airport with direct control over space allocation, both 
in the initial assignment of space and through the 
reallocation procedures described in Attachment III; and 
(c) they assure the Airport of the airlines' longterm 
commitment to the Airport. Ms. Schimke also states that 
the proposed Lease and Operating Agreements would 
benefit the 18 airlines as follows: (a) they give the 
airlines a term of years, which ends June 30, 2011, over 
which to amortize their tenant improvements: and (b) 
they provide parity among airlines at the Airport by, for 
example, giving the airlines voting rights on airline 
organizations advisory- to the Airport. 

If any of the IS airlines choose not to sign their proposed 
Lease and Operating Agreements, they will need to sign a 
month-to-month space permit instead. The same rates 
and charges will apply whether airlines choose to sign 
their Lease and Operating Agreements, or month-to- 
month space permits. Such monthly space permits would 
not be subject to Board of Supervisors approval unless 
they exceeded SI. 000. 000 in value. 

3. Of the 26 airlines which will relocate their 
international flight operations to the new ITB, eight 
airlines are the subject of Item 8. File 99-1852. of this 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

46 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

October 13, 1999 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



report to the Finance and Labor Committee. According to 
Ms. Schimke, the 18 proposed Lease and Operating 
Agreements will be similar to the Lease and Use 
Agreements, as modified, for the eight airlines under File 
99-1852. except they will not have the Entitlement Space 
provisions of Lease and Use Agreements. 

4. Under the proposed resolution, the Airport would be 
authorized to modify the allocation of exclusive use space 
in the new ITB without further approval from the Board 
of Supervisors, as long as the modifications are consistent 
with the provisions contained in Attachment III. All 
other modifications to airlines' allocations of exclusive use 
space would require Board of Supervisors approval. 

5. Under the proposed resolution, the Airport could 
terminate an airline's lease if that airline voluntarily 
ceased international flight operations at the Airport, 
subject to Board of Supervisors approval of that lease 
termination. 

6. Under the existing CBT space allocations, joint use 
space includes only gate hold-rooms, baggage handling 
and baggage claim areas, and Federal Inspection Service 
areas. The joint use space approach is being expanded in 
the new ITB. According to Mr. Franzella, all of the new 
ITB's 168 ticket counters will be designated as joint use 
spaces, compared with only eight of the 111 ticket 
counters currently designated as joint use space in the 
CTB. The remaining 103 CTB ticket counters are 
exclusive use spaces under the existing Lease and Use 
Agreements. Mr. Franzella also states that all 24 gate 
hold-rooms in the new ITB will be designated as joint use 
spaces, whereas in the CTB United Airlines has exclusive 
use space rights over five of the CTB's ten gate hold- 
rooms. 

7. As explained in Attachment V, provided by the 
Airport, scheduling of joint use space in the new ITB will 
be managed, under the Airport's oversight, by the airline 
consortium. SFO Terminal Equipment Company, LLC 
(SFOTEC), a company to be formed by the 26 airlines. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

47 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

October 13, 1999 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



8. Execution copies of the proposed Lease and Operating 
Agreements were sent to the airlines on September 2, 
1999. Final approval is contingent on the Human Rights 
Commission's determination of each airline's compliance 
with, or exemption from, the requirements of San 
Francisco's Equal Benefits Ordinance. Ms. Schimke 
advises that the 18 airlines are currently in various 
stages of obtaining certification of their compliance with, 
or exemption from, that ordinance's requirements, and 
that the Airport anticipates that all 18 will comply. 

9. According to Mr. Franzella. a phased occupancy of the 
subject space will permit all airlines which have exclusive 
use spaces to commence tenant improvements of those 
spaces no later than January 1. 2000. As previously 
noted, the new ITB is scheduled to open in May of 2000. 
While the lessees are not required to make a minimum 
investment per square foot in the tenant improvement 
construction of their exclusive use spaces, they are 
required to meet the requirements of the relevant 
construction codes. Construction of all exclusive use 
spaces for Lease and Operating Agreement airlines will 
be performed under a consolidated contract awarded by 
the Airport's Airline Liaison Office in order to minimize 
potential coordination problems. The exception will be 
the VIP clubrooms being constructed by contractors 
individually hired by Air France, British Airways, EVA 
Airways. Korean Air. Lufthansa German Airlines, and 
Virgin Atlantic Airways. Construction of all joint use 
space will be the responsibility of the Airport. 

9. The airlines' payment of rents for the new ITB space 
will commence on the date the new ITB is open and 
operational, as determined by the Airport Director. On 
that date, the airlines' rental payments for the CTB cease. 
The IS airlines will be expected to surrender their space 
in the CTB immediately. 

10. All lessees will pay rent for their new ITB space in 
accordance with the Airport's rates and charges for airline 
rental space. These are determined annually by the 
Airport using the rates and charges methodology 
prescribed in the Lease and Operating Agreements, and 
contained in Attachment VI, provided by the Airport. The 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

48 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

October 13, 1999 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

division between the airlines of the rent payable for the 
new ITB's joint use space will be determined on the basis 
of a "Joint Use Formula" as explained in Attachment VII, 
provided by the Airport. 

11. In summary, the Airport estimates that approval of 
both Files 99-1852 and 99-1S53 will result in total 
estimated airline lease revenues for the Airport of 
$37,161,303 from the new ITB in FY 2000-2001, an 
increase of S 19,082,405 over the estimated airline lease 
revenues for the Airport of S 18, 079, 398 from the CTB in 
FY 1999-2000. 

Recommendation: Approve the proposed resolution, contingent on the 18 

airlines' compliance with the City's Equal Benefits 
Ordinance. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

49 



Attachment I 



< 

o 
c/j 

D 



T- 


















o 


















o 

o 


d 


° 1 ot 
2 aS 




O 


O 


CO 


< 


55 

CO 


> 

u. 


ca 


T 


CO 


^ — 


h- 


2 


r» 


"ca .H 


' r ~ 


*™ 


^ 


co 




, ~ 




















^ 


q c« 
H LU 


a 9 














5 

o 


a a 
















^ 














o 
o 




Ss 


^5 


S5 


S? 




< 


S? 


cr> 




CDI C 


m 


CO 


T— 


CO 


o 


>- 




CD! CU 


t — 


CO 


in 


CO 


z 


CO 




^ £ 


CO 


CO 


r^- 


CO 




T 






cr S 


















ea a 




















o 


CM 


CO 


uo 


^~ 


^a- 


^ 






o 


CO 


CN 


CO 


o 


CO 


o 






CM 


00 


O 


T— 


CO 


o 


o 


















CN 




■g 


o 


T 


CO 


GO 


CO 


■<* 






0)1 


N 


N- 


CM 


CO 


1 — 


h- 


O 

o 
o 




ca 
| 


,— . 


a> 

CN 






V* 


ci" 


CM 






1 — 


i — 




tft 




CM 


>- 




u-l 52 


e<> 


fa* 








«/> 


© 




"ca 2 
~a a 














T3 
0) 




h a 


















CM 


r^ 


1^ 


co 


CO 


o 


ro 




a 




o 


CO 


CO 


CM 


CO 


CO 


E 






eq 


N-_ 


CO 


o_ 


co_ 


CM 










cm" 


co" 




co" 




to" 


LU 




■a 




in 


CO 


T— 


r^ 




h- 




CO 




*- 


CM 




CM 




co 


* 




















m 


la 




cut 














t 


















P 


« 


cut 
















1— 


LU 


LU 














.". 






t 


Tf 


a 


co 


o 


CM 








co 


o 


CM 


N- 


V* 


CO 


-- 






CN 


CM 


CO 


O 




CN 


o 




d 


CM* 


co" 


co" 


in" 




h>T 


CO 




a* 


O 


O 


CO 


m 




CN 


o 




ra 


T_ 


a> 


&> 


o_ 




«o_ 


CM" 






T 


t" 




i — 




o" 


co 

CO 




,s 


y* 


V* 




&> 




▼- 




a 












V* 


o 




Lil M 














>- 




ra J 














u_ 




a g 














© 




h a 


















cr: 


CM 


co 


CO 


Q 


CT 


- 




j 


|s- 


CO 


r- 


co 




O 




cr 


CO 


to 


eo 


CO 




m 


o 




3 


co" 


t" 


T— 


"* 




t>«." 






CO 


in 




CO 




CN 






3 a 

a cm 

H LU 






















— <" 


g 












d 


"5 


— O 


* g 


c 












CD 

C 


J5 2 to o 


5 -S 

c — 


c 
2 


■ 
in 








a 


s 


m 2 c c 


O "3 


■ 


c 








'a 

3 


"c 


2. O O <D 

2 = = CD 


£ 5 
■ a 


cd' 


■ 








g 

Cfll 

.92 


"<5 
■ £ 


J? O o Q. 

a u tn o 

, o rj o 


O S 

— CN 


■ 
> 



> 








o* _ 


fc 1 

o S 


> J ■ ■ 


>• 2 


>. 


_l 






— ca 


« — « *~ 

o J » ■■ 


w CD 

o c 


o 


a 


< 






O CD 


dill 

o • _ > 


?s 


o 2 


a o 
o u 


»- 






ca a. 
Q cot 


51 


10 5 -5 .H 

O IL .£. ■ 


u 3 


ra 2 


re - 
O ■ 


O 



■ 5 

O CD 



- O 
ai CD 



3 ■= CN 

u 5 6 

</) o 

— CO o 

o £ CN 

E-S > 

-j CD U. 



£ <D « 

— ^Z CD 

" ^ "5 
J £. E 

2St 

e - « 

Q. <n -3 

o c _ 

■= ® c 

ci E o 

— CD p 

«= CD ' 

« o 2 

§< = 

= CD C 

Q « . 

E ^ = 

• -3 ° 

— CD (o 

= ® « 

5 co c 

0) — ' CD 

£ = 3 

- "I - 

a * co 

co S 
cn c 

CD = =: 

£ "5 CD 
_ JC 



^5 E 



^"^5 Z 

_ ^) C « 

e ® o S 
« © — 

CO ^ CD C 

• - 3 ° 



" ^ CD 
> ° >• 

l|i 

o 3 a) 

o o — 

-2 "X o I 

• J & 

co ra < 

- = 2 

CD C — 

2 "c « 

— CD 3 

c S co 
□ t- cj 



«' 2 2 

O O ; 

c > 2 

• S = 
co co o 

• D O 
CL £ < 



ra g 
5 .2 



« ra 
5 -F. 



C3 C3 



^ | • ^ ~ 



CN — 



50 



Attachment II 



2 

o 

D. 

o 

- 

o 
CO 

o 



© 


0> 
3 
















cz 














o 


CD 














o 


> 














I'- 
LL. 






< 


^5 

< ™ < 


< g S£ < < 


. O ^P vP 

°^<<°;<incD<cD 


5? 




CD 

u 






-— . CM —^ 


— in cm ~~~ ~-~ 


CM — - — C0—~ . ■ — • 


'SZ 




Z 


Z«Z 


Z CO CM Z Z 


0)ZZCMZ^^Z° 


in 


% 


Q> 










CO CM CO CO CD 
' CM CM 


IO 


o 


iff 














© 


fc 














© 


5 














© 

>- 
































j 














o 

.S2 






< 


s 

< N. < 


< °o ^r < < 


^S vP o 

■ <9<<£-<<o 


o 












CNI -'•* n """-- *-* CO "**- "-*- ^ ' 




a. 
E 


03 




z 


Z|$Z 
CM 


z ^ d z z 

T- CO 


C) 

If) 


o 
















o 


a 
















CO 


T- 


in i^- to 


o cm t- en co 


C0OOCDCM^-r--OO 


CO 


^ 


ra 


CD 


h- O h- 


CO CO •<- CD CD 


T-feefeecMN-o^aico 


<« 


o 


CO 


°°. ^ ^ 


co_ co_ 10 r^- o_ 


CO CO t- CD N- co r-~ 


r- 


o 


a 


co" 


in in T-" 


r--" T-" in T-" -r-" 


^r oo cm co in co r- 


CN 


o 


D 


in 


in n s 


O) t- CO O) ^f 


CO CD r-- O CM CD CO 


CO 


>- 





fee <=f. 


co t- fee co t- fee co 


oo 


CD 




fee 


fee fee 


t^ - t^ - t/5" try try 


CN 


® 


O 
1- 










oe 


•a 












0) 

re 












* 


00 


in o en 


r-- co a> o t- 


moocMNSscon 


co 


E 


CO 


cm ■«- in 


NCOOIDCM 


en i- t- o o -^- in 


CM 




T- 


co cm -3- 


h- O O CD 00 


"* CM CO CO tJ- CM 00 


T- 


w 




T— 


t- in t- 


t- CM CM t- 


CD CO T- ID CM t- CD 


Iff 


LU 








«~ 




If) 


1- 














00 






























o 


O CO o 


O CM t- O CO 


inoooooocoocn 


o 


"]_ 




fee 


fee cm fee 


fee in cn fee co 


T-fc^Trmfee-<-cofeeo 


^~ 


10 

o 






CO 


O CO CM 


n- in co ao o o 


CO 


"5 




oo" 


co m in 


CO CD T- N- r-~ i- 


.,— 


4-* 


Q 




T— 


h- T- T~ 


cr> co in co co o 


m 


re 






T — 


t-co feete tete -^-fee r- 


CO 


a: 


"ro 




fee 


fee fee 


fee fee 


^J" 


o 


o 










te 


o 


h- 
























© 












© 

>- 
LL 














o 


O N- O 


O O CM O t- 


inoocooooooco 


^3- 




o 


oo t- in 


h~ O CD 0)0 05 


CO 




IO 


h~_ CM_ CM 


co ^ in ^ co o 


CM_ 


CD 






T-" 


t-" ©" 


in t-" 


T- 


1- 












CN 


O 






















S » 












c^ = 












•— — oo 










CO 


< < re 










>> .^ 


£ ro M 








CD 


CO < 

$ W 0) n r 

.b a) >~ E 
< .?= re -q Qj 


3 o < 
Q re | 

. |5 ilwi 






LL 

Z 


1 


CO O 


o < -? Cl re 

.9- 2 ■= rare 






o 


C C 


3 -- l? c S - ' 5 < 

> .E J O (J D > $ i 


_1 
< 




E 


2 


O LL ^ 


Z re .2 S £ 
= to 'c ro .c 


O 




< 


] < 


< < < 


< < m o o 


iuu_^ii:_i_icc:i7)> 


1- 



5 ~ 



ro co 



51 



FROM SF I A DEPARTMENT OF AVIATION MANAGEMENT • 1/S1 



Alrpon 
Cor—i m on 
Ciry ana Coumy 
ot San 'rancttco 

Willie L Brown, Jr 
Mayor 

Hanfy £. Barman 

Prasidam 

Larry Maizola 
Vice Prejtaew 

Micfiael S SrnjnikY 

UndB S Crayton 

Caryl Ito 

JOHN L MARTIN 
Ajrnort Director 




Attachment III 
Page 1 cf 2 



San Francisco I ntern ational Airport 

GATEWAY TO TMf PACIFIC 



REDUCTION. RELOCATON. AND/OR REALLOCATION 
OF EXCLUSIVE USE SPACE 



When required by a significant shift in market share or to accommodate a new 
airline, the Airport tan reduce, relocate, and/or reallocate exclusive use space in 
accordance with the procedures described below. 

Airline Ticket Office (ATO) Procedures 

• ATOs arc the ticket counter support offices located on Floors 3 and 3M of the 
newITB. 

• ATO space may be reduced, relocated, and/or reallocated in conjunction with 
reallocation of ticket counter preferential use assignments, which are decided 
by SFOTEC, with Airport oversight, based on flight activity and new ITB 
Ticket Counter Management Protocols. 

• A key objective of the new ITB Ticket Counter Management Protocols is to 
provide each airline with a regular check-in location, with the maximum 
number of positions desired (if available). 

• Reducuon, relocation, and/or reallocation of ATO space held by airliner under 
Lease and Use Agreements will occur only after the City has determined that 
(1) there is no unassigned ATO space on Floors 3 or 3M, (2) there is no ATO 
space that may be recovered for reassignment from airlines with space permits, 
and (3) the reduction, relocation, and/or reallocation of leased ATO space will 
not reduce any affected Lease and Use Agreement lessee's space below a 
minimum operating unit. 

Procedures for Non-Entitlement Space 

• "Non-EnOtlement Space" refers to all Exclusive use space with a Lease & 
Operation Agreement that is not "ATO Space". 

• To reduce or relocate Non-Entitlement Space, the Airport shall develop and 
present a plan and accompanying rationale to SFOTEC and the impacted 
airline(s). Airlines have a 30 day period 

• At the end of the 30 day comment period, the Airport shall deliver a notice to 
the airline(s) required to reduce or relocate space in accordance with the plan, 
noting that the plan may have been modified dunng the review process. 

■ Non-Enntlement Space requires 90 days notice to recover. 



SAN FRANCISCO INTERNAnONAL AIRPORT . P0 BOX BS7 . SAN RANCISCO CALIFORNIA 9*128 . TELEPHONE :S50 W jOOO • =AX :6aOI 79»-aO0S 



■5? 



FROM SFIA DEPARTMENT OF AVIATION MANAGEMENT (WED) 10. 6' 99 1 : 04/ST. 10: 02/NO. 4361713183 P 8 

Page 2 Attachment III 

Page 2 of 2 



D. Buyout Provisions 

• When pursuant to these provisions, reduction or relocation of both Entitlement 
and Non-Entitlement Space is subject to buyout by the Airport of the value of 
the improvements amortized on a straight-line basis over the remaining term of 
the Lease and Use Agreement. If, however, exclusive use space is voluntarily 
surrendered by an airline, then the Airport is not obligated to offer buyout 
compensation. 



53 



Attachment IV 



: u u o u : 



I I o i 



: : : '_ ; < < : : < 



__ °| 

■§ g uuouuouu 

— 001 

_i 



uuouuuuuuu 



U U U U U r _ : |UU 



. . .'JUU<< :-'- 



UOUUUCJUUUCJ 



______ : : :__ 



2 £- 



!_><<<U<<<< 



<<CJ<w '-.<<<<_ 



r-l -- --. _l 



ij _- 



U CJ U IUUUUUU 



eg s g j £ 



_0 -0 =£ S — 



= U <w e. 



'_ :__;^--<<<__ ' 






<-> — u __ _: =5: 

I J "Ml J I" 



=:_:__- 



54 



^ a « - = r . 



=_ - _ a 



•= - ._ - 
_ — = g 



._ ._" = _- =: 

2 5 f "5 ■ 



FROM SFIA DEPARTMENT 0? AVIATION MANAGEMENT (WED) 10. 6' 99 1 : 05/ST. 1 : 02/NO. 436171S183 P 9 

Attachment V 
Page 1 or 2 

AIRPORT COMMISSION 

SAN FRANCISCO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT 

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 

INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM 

TO: Alan Gibson DATE: October 6, 1999 

FROM: ^T)Dorothy Schimke, Senior Property Manager 

y^ Department of Aviation Management 

SFO Terminal Equipment Company. LLC 



The airlines that will operate at the new International Terminal Building (TTB) are forming a 
limited liability company, SFO Terminal Equipment Company, LLC (SFOTEC). The purpose of 
this company is to operate and maintain certain equipment and joint use space in the TTB and to 
schedule the usage of such joint use equipment and space among airline members and non- 
member users. 



(1) Operation and Maintenance of Equipment 

Maintenance of certain operating equipment and systems owned by the Airport will be the 
responsibility of SFOTEC. This equipment includes but is not limited to passenger loading 
bridges, the baggage system, the preconditioned air system, the 400 Hz ground power system, 
flight and baggage information display systems and common use telephones at gate podiums and 
ticket counters. 



(2) Gate and Ticket Counter Scheduling 

Gate scheduling: The scheduling of the new ITB's 24 joint use gates will be managed by 
SFOTEC, subject to Airport approval, to maximize the efficient use of those gates. 
Determination of gate usage policy and final resolution of conflicts will rest solely with the 
Airport Director. 

Ticket counter assignment and management: The assignment of the new ITB's 168 joint use 
ticket counters will be managed by SFOTEC, subject to Airport approval, in accordance with 
Ticket Counter Management Protocols designed to maximize the efficient use of those ticket 
counters. Determination of ticket counter usage policy and final resolution of conflicts will rest 
solely with the Airport Director. 



55 



FROM SFIA DEPARTMENT OF AVIATION MANAGEMENT (WED)IO. 6' 99 1 : 05/ST. 10:02/NO. 4861718188 ? 10 

AJan Gibson Attachment V 

October 6. 1999 Pa^e 2 of 2 

Page 2 



(3) Management Services 

Tower operations: The ground movement of aircraft into and out of the new ITB, and within 
non-movement zones designated by the Airport, will be managed by SFOTEC. 

Cleaning and Maintenance: SFOTEC will also manage janitorial services for non-public joint 
use areas, and ramp sweeping. 

Accounting: SFOTEC will be responsible for allocaung costs and distributing billings among 
the airline members and non-member users. 



(4) Coordination and Oversight 

An Oversight Committee, chaired by the Airport and including both airline and Airport 
representation, will be responsible for setting SFOTEC s missions, addressing issues of mutual 
concern to the .Airport and the airlines, and reviewing SFOTEC's performance. 



56 



ROM SFIA DEPARTMENT OF AVIATION MANAGEMENT (THU)iO. 7' 99 7 : OO/ST. 7 : 00/NO. 486171 8216 P 2 

Attachment VI 



Page 1 of 2 



AIRPORT COMMISSION 

SAN FRANCISCO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT 
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 

MEMORANDUM 



TO: Alan Gibson DATE: October 6, 1999 

FROM: Dorothy Schimke 

Airport Rates and Charges 

Background 

In 1979 a number of airlines filed suit lo litigate certain complaints against the City, 
including an allegation that Airport revenues were being unlawfuDy diverted to the City's 
General Fund, (Federal law prohibits the expenditure of airport revenues for non-airport 
purposes.) In early 1980 the City and the airlines that were parties to the suit entered into 
settlement negotiations that resulted in a detailed Settlement Agreement and an Airline- 
Airport Lease and Use Agreement ("the LU")- Provisions for a substantial restructuring 
of the financial operation of the Airport, including the methodology for calculating 
Airport Rates and Charges, were incorporated into the LU as part of the Settlement 
Agreement. 

Calculation of Rates and Charges 

In general, the aMines are obligated to pay terminal building rental rates and landing fees 
in amounts that, when included with all other Airport revenues, will be sufficient to cover 
all annual Airport costs. Rates are adjusted annually. Terminal rate adjustments are 
based on the average cost per square foot of providing, maintaining and operating the 
terminal building areas. 

A simplified outline of the methodology for calculating Airport terminal rents is as 
follows: 

1. Expense Forecasting. Airport forecasts its expenses, including both operating and 
capital expenses, for the upcoming fiscal year. 

2. Revenue Forecasting. Airport forecasts its non-airline terminal revenues for the 
upcoming fiscal year. 

• Concession revenues 

• Rents from non-airline tenants 

• Other revenues (e.g., interest on unexpended capital funds) 



57 



FROM SFIA DEPARTMENT OF AVIATION MANAGEMENT [THUP.O. 7' 99 7:0! /ST. 7 : 00/NO. 4861718216 F 



Attachment VI 
Page 2 of 2 



Alan Gibson 
October 6. 1999 
Page 2 



Annual Service Payment. 15% of Concession revenues goes to City's general fund 

as compensation for indirect services to the Airport. 

Calculation. 

• Non-airline revenues (net of Annual Service Payment) are set off against 
projected expenses. 

• Remainder (expenses that are not covered by non airline revenues) is divided by 
the total square feet of terminal space rented by airlines to determine average rent 
per square foot, which is then apportioned into five rate categories. 

• The higher the number of square feet rented to airlines, the lower the effective 
rental rate required to recover the terminal costs. 



58 



FROM SFIA DEPARTMENT OF AVIATION MANAGEMENT (TUE)IO. 5' 99 16 : 4S/ST. 1 6 : 47/NO. 4861 71 8158 P 2 



Airport 

City and County 
of San Francisco 

Willie L Brown, Jr. 
Mayor 

Henry E. Barman 
Preaiaerrt 

Larry ManWa 
Vice President 

Michael S- Strunsky 

Linoe S. Crayton 

Caryl ItO 

JOHN L MARTIN 
Airoort OireCTOr 




Attachment VII 



San Francisco International Airport 



GATEWAT TO THt T iOFIC 



JOINT USE FORMULA FOR THE NTW ITB 



The total charges for each room comprising joint use space shall be divided among the 
airlines using the new ITB according to the following formula: 

• Twenty percent of each joint space shall be divided equally among all airlines using 
that joint use space. Since Alaska Airlines will use only 53.4 percent of the joint 
use spaces, it will pay 1/26* of the 20 percent payment for those spaces. For all 
other joint use spaces, the remaining 25 airlines will pay 1725 th each. These 
proportions will change as individual airlines start or cease international flight 
operations at the new ITB. 

• Eighty percent shall be divided as follows. Each airline using the joint use space 
pays that proportion which the number of its passengers enplaning and/or deplaning 
at the new ITB bears to the total number of passengers enplaning and/or deplaning 
at the new ITB. The proportions for each type of joint use space are calculated on 
the following bases: 



Categorv 


Tvpe of Soace 


Tvpe of Passenger 


I 


Ticlcel counter/gate 
holdroom 


new ITB enplaned passengers 


n 


Baggage claim /Federal 
Inspection Service 


new ITB deplaned passengers 


n 


Other 3 rd floor and 
above, and l sl floor 
Dassenser access 


new ITB total enplaned and 
deplaned passengers 


m 


Other enclosed, 2* 1 and 
below 


new ITB total enplaned and 
deplaned passengers 


TV 


Inbound baggage 
handling 


new ITB deplaned passengers 


rv 


Outbound baggage 
handlins 


new ITB enplaned passengers 


v 


Other unenclosed 


new ITB total enplaned and 
deplaned passengers 



• If for any reason the number of passengers enplaning and/or deplaning at the new 
1TB in the prior fiscal year for any of the airlines using the joint use space 
constitute an ina pp r op r i ate basis for forecasting that airline's passenger volume for 
the year in which the charges are levied, the City can make appropriate adjustments 
in order to equitably apportion the total costs among all of the airlines using such 
joint use space. 

SAN FRANCISCO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT . PO BOX SM7 . SAN FKANCSCO CAUF0RN1A 94128 - TELEPHONE 16501 794-5O0O • FAX ISSOI 794-500S 



59 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

October 13, 1999 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

Items 10 and 11 - Files 99-1412 and 99-1413 



Department: 



Item: 



Amount: 
Source of Funds: 
Description: 



Residential Rent Stabilization and Arbitration Board 
(RNT) 

File 99-1412 

Ordinance amending Chapter 37 of the San Francisco 
Administrative Code (the "Residential Rent Stabilization 
and Arbitration Ordinance"), by adding Section 37. 6A to 
require the Residential Rent Stabilization and Arbitration 
Board to obtain a neutral, comprehensive, fact-based 
socio-economic study of the effect of the Residential Rent 
Stabilization and Arbitration Ordinance in San Francisco; 
and providing that, pending completion of the study, any 
proposed substantive amendment to the Residential Rent 
Stabilization and Arbitration Ordinance must be 
supported by independent fact-based findings prepared by 
a neutral entity. 

File 99-1413 

Ordinance appropriating $175,000 from the General Fund 
Reserve to the Residential Rent Stabilization and 
Arbitration Board to fund a fact-based socio-economic 
study of the effects of Chapter 37 of the San Francisco 
Administrative Code (the "Residential Rent Stabilization 
and Arbitration Ordinance"), for Fiscal Year 1999-2000. 

$175,000 

General Fund Reserve 

File 99-1412 

This proposed ordinance would authorize the RNT to 
obtain a comprehensive, fact-based study of the socio- 
economic effects of the Residential Rent Stabilization and 
Arbitration Ordinance in San Francisco. The ordinance 
proposes that the study be completed and reported in 
writing within one year and be conducted by neutral 
researchers. The ordinance states that the RNT is to 
organize a joint meeting with the Board of Supervisors "in 
order for members of the respective boards to share ideas 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



60 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

October 13, 1999 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

on the scope of The Study, and in order to hear from 
interested members of the public" (Section 37.6A(b)(l)). 
Furthermore, as part of determining the scope of the 
report, the RNT is to consult with one or more public or 
private entities outside City government which have 
related expertise. 

Section 37.6A(c) of this ordinance states that "Until such 
time as The Study has been completed and reported in 
writing to the Rent Board and Board of Supervisors, any 
substantive amendment proposed to the Board of 
Supervisors for the Residential Rent Stabilization and 
Arbitration Ordinance (San Francisco Administrative 
Code Chapter 37) shall include independent fact-based 
findings in support, prepared by a neutral entity". 

Section 37. 6A would be entirely new. In accordance with 
Section 37.6A(d), once the subject study has been 
completed and reported in writing to the RNT and to the 
Board of Supervisors, the City Attorney is to draft an 
ordinance for the Board of Supervisors removing Section 
37. 6A from Chapter 37 of the Administrative Code. Ms. 
Marie Corlett Blits of the City Attorney's Office advises 
that the intention of Section 37.6A(d) is to ensure that 
Section 37. 6A would be deleted from the Administrative 
Code once the subject study had been completed. Ms. 
Blits advises that it was not possible to include an 
automatic "sunset clause" in the ordinance as the subject 
study does not have a fixed completion date. 

File 99-1413 

This ordinance would appropriate SI 75,000 from the 
General Fund Reserve to fund a professional services 
contract to conduct the above-noted study. 

Budget: $175,000 for a professional services contract. 

Comments: 1. As stated in the findings section of the proposed 

ordinance under File 99-1412. the purposes of this 
ordinance are to (a) better inform the Board of 
Supervisors regarding future changes to the Residential 
Rent Stabilization and Arbitration Ordinance, (b) improve 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

61 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

October 13, 1999 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

the quality and utility of that ordinance, and (c) assist the 
City and its leaders in the formulation of housing policies. 

2. The proposed ordinance under File 99-1413 would 
appropriate $175,000 for a fact-based socio-economic 
scudy. According to Mr. Joe Grubb of the RNT, the 
requested $175,000 would be expended for a professional 
services contract which would be awarded through a 
Request for Proposal process, taking into account both 
vendor qualifications and costs. Mr. Grubb advises that 
the Request for Proposal would reflect the issues and 
desired outcomes raised by the joint public meeting of the 
RNT and the Board of Supervisors. According to Mr. 
Grubb, the Request for Proposal would be sent to vendors 
as directed by the Purchasing Department, and would be 
advertised in local newspapers and on the RNTs internet 
site for at least one month. Mr. Grubb advises that the 
timing of this advertising would depend on when the 
ordinance was approved. 

3. As of the writing of this report, Mr. Grubb states that 
he is unable to estimate the number of hours or the 
hourly rates of the subject professional services contract. 

4. Pending submission to the Board of Supervisors of (a) 
the selected contractor, (b) the estimated number of 
hours, and (c) the hourly rates of the selected contractor, 
the requested funds of $175,000 under File 99-1413 
should be placed on reserve. 

Recommendations: 1. In accordance with Comment No. 4 above, amend the 

proposed ordinance to reserve $175,000 pending selection 
of the contractor, and submission of the selected 
contractor's estimated hours and hourly rates to the 
Board of Supervisors (File 99-1413). 

2. Approval of the proposed ordinance (File 99-1412) and 
the proposed ordinance, as amended (File 99-1413), is a 
policy matter for the Board of Supervisors. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

62 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

October 13, 1999 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



Item 12 -File 98-1238 
Department: 

Item: 



Amount: 
Source of Funds: 
Description: 



Department of Parking and Traffic (DPT) 

Parking Authority 

Mayor's Office of Public Finance 

Resolution approving the issuance of not to exceed 
$8,500,000 in Lease Revenue Bonds by the Parking 
Authority to finance the construction of the North Beach 
Parking Garage Project, approving the execution and 
delivery of a Project lease between the Parking Authority, 
as lessor, and the City, as lessee (including certain 
indemnification provisions therein), approving the form 
and circulation of an official statement relating to such 
bonds, authorizing the payment of certain costs of 
issuance from the proceeds of such bonds, correcting legal 
title to the property, ratifying previous actions taken in 
connection with the foregoing matters, and authorizing 
the taking of appropriate actions in connection therewith. 

Not to exceed $8,500,000 

Lease Revenue Bonds 

Under the proposed legislation, the Parking Authority is 
requesting that the Board of Supervisors approve the 
issuance of $8.5 million of lease revenue bonds and the 
related necessary documents in order to finance the 
construction of the North Beach Parking Garage. 

In November of 1987, voters approved Proposition F 
which authorized the Parking Authority to issue lease 
revenue bonds to fund the construction of parking lots 
and parking garages in certain San Francisco 
neighborhoods. Although there was no specific dollar 
amount set forth in Proposition F, the North 
Beach/Broadway area was one of the specific eight areas 
authorized for construction of a parking lot or garage. As 
stated in the November of 1987 voter handbook, 
Proposition F required that the Parking Authority lease 
the parking garages to the City and that the City make 
the lease payments on the Lease Revenue Bonds from the 
City's General Fund. In accordance with Proposition F, 
the General Fund would then be reimbursed from the 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



63 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

October 13, 1999 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



parkin-: revenues which accrue to the City's Offstreet 
Parking Fund. The Offstreet Parking Fund receives 
parking revenues primarily from City-owned parking lots 
and parking garages and from parking meters. 

The former North Beach Parking Garage and Lot was 
located at 735-755 Yallejo Street, at the intersection of 
Churchill Alley. Lots 23 and 25 in Assessor's Block 147. 
Lot 23 previously contained a two-story garage, known as 
the North Beach Parking Garage, and Lot 25 contained a 
surface parking lot. The site has an area of approximately 
18,90G square feet. The North Beach Parking Garage was 
a privately-owned and operated, self-parking facility with 
48 parking spaces delineated by painted lines. The 
adjacent parking lot had 34 parking spaces delineated by 
painted lines. In total, the North Beach Parking Garage 
and Lot had 82 parking spaces available to self-parkers. If 
the Garage and Lot were filled with vehicles parked by 
valets, who were able to park cars more densely than the 
areas delineated by painted lines, then the Garage and 
Lot had a capacity of approximately 115 vehicles, 
according to Mr. Ron Szeto of the Department of Parking 
and Traffic. 

In l!t;<2. the Parking Authority, using parking revenues 
from the Offstreet Parkins Fund, as appropriated by the 
Board of Supervisors (File 101-88-117), purchased the 
privately-owned North Beach Parking Garage and the 
adjacent parking lot for $4.7 million in anticipation of 
constructing a City parking garage for public use. In 
1993, DPT contracted out the design to Tai Associates for 
a seven-level. 330 space self-parking garage with the 
intention of receiving either a variance from the height 
and bulk restrictions of the North Beach RH2 residential 
zone or a rezoning of the property. However, after several 
years of public meetings and efforts by DPT to earn 
approval of the proposed design, such permission was 
denied by the Planning Commission because the 
neighbors objected to the size of the structure. 

In 1997, DPT decided to obtain a new scaled down design 
from the Department of Public Works' Bureau of 
Architecture at a cost of $360,000 for a four-story, 203 
space self-parking garage, which was within the height 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

64 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

October 13, 1999 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



and bulk limits defined for the RH2 zone. Mr. Szeto 
advises that if the garage were filled with vehicles parked 
by valets, who were able to park vehicles more densely 
than the areas delineated by painted lines, the proposed 
new North Beach Parking Garage would have a capacity 
of approximately 300 vehicles. The proposed design was 
approved by the Planning Commission in November of 
1997 and the Capital Improvement Advisory Committee 
(CIAC) in December of 1997. 

According to Mr. Szeto. DPT demolished the old North 
Beach Garage in April of 1998 because the Garage had (1) 
only one ramp, the width of 1.5 vehicle lanes, for use by 
vehicles moving between the upper and lower floors, 
which resulted in a dangerous situation, (2) severe roof 
leaks, and (3) poor lighting. Following demolition, DPT 
paved the former Garage area, thereby joining it to the 
existing adjacent parking lot to serve as one paved 
parking lot. 

Budget: $15,911,330 

Mr. Szeto provided a North Beach Parking Garage Project 
budget, including both the expenditures and the revenue 
sources, which is contained in Attachment I to this report. 

Comments: 1. According to Ms. Sarah Hollenbeck of the Mayor's 

Office of Public Finance, this proposed issuance of up to 
$8.5 million in Lease Revenue Bonds for construction of 
the North Beach Parking Garage Project would be the 
first bond issuance authorized under Proposition F. 

2. According to Ms. Lisa-Anne Wong of the City 
Attorney's Office, there has been a pending lawsuit 
concerning the North Beach Parking Garage from a 
community organization called Snarled Traffic Obstructs 
Progress (STOP). STOP sued the City with charges of 
improper environmental review and violation of the 
Planning Code. On July 23. 1998, the City won the Trial 
Court lawsuit. However, Ms. Wong notes that on 
September 10, 1998, STOP appealed this decision to the 
State Court of Appeals and on August 31, 1999, the City 
won the appeal. Subsequently, STOP petitioned the State 
Court of Appeals for rehearing, which was denied by the 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

65 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

October 13, 1999 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



Court on September 23, 1999. STOP's only recourse at 
this point is to file a petition with the State Supreme 
Court to hear the matter, according to Ms. Wong. 
However, Ms. Wong advises that the deadline for filing 
such a petition is October 12, 1999. Therefore, as of the 
writing of this report, it is not known whether STOP has 
filed this final petition with the State Supreme Court. M>. 
Wong reports that if such a petition is filed, she will notify 
the Budget Analyst when she is notified by the Court. 

3. Mr. Szeto provided Attachment II, which contains a 
list of the bidders and the amounts bid for the 
construction of the North Beach Parking Garage. As 
shown in Attachment II, the selected bidder is MH 
Construction Management Co. at a cost of $5,986,312. Mr 
Szeto advises that the MH Construction Management Co. 
bid was the lowest responsive and responsible bidder 
because the two lower bidders did not meet the Human 
Rights Commission's (HRC) requirements. 

4. Mr. Szeto notes that the construction would begin 
as soon as the proceeds from the sale of the subject $8.5 
million Lease Revenue Bonds are available, which is 
estimated to be in early December of 1999. Mr. Szeto 
estimates that the construction of the new Garage will 
take approximately 12 months, depending on the amount 
of delays caused by rainy weather this coming winter. The 
new North Beach Parking Garage is anticipated to be 
open for revenue operation by April of 2001. Mr. Szeto 
reports that the DPT will undertake a competitive bid 
process in approximately September of 2000 to select the 
operator for the new Garage. The agreement with the 
parking operator will be subject to the Board of 
Supervisors approval. 

5. As shown in Attachment I, the total estimated 
project cost for the North Beach Parking Garage is 
$15,911,330. However, Ms. Hollenbeck advises as shown 
on Attachment I the costs of SI. 994. 817 is the cost to 
finance the lease le venue bonds which includes 21 months 
of capitalized interest on the bonds and a debt service 
reserve that could be used to pay for the final year of debt 
service on the lease revenue bonds. In addition to the $4.7 
million which DPT paid to purchase the property in 1992, 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



66 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

October 13, 1999 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



an additional $1.2 million ($5,899,068 total expenditures 
incurred to date less $4.7 million acquisition costs) of 
costs for planning, design, construction management and 
contingency fees have already been incurred on this 
project, in accordance with prior appropriation approval 
by the Board of Supervisors. As shown in Attachment I, 
costs incurred to date have been paid from the Offstreet 
Parking Fund ($5,360,319) and from previously 
authorized 1994 Parking Meter Revenue Bonds 
(S538,749). Aside from the construction costs of 
S5, 986, 3 12, to complete the project, an additional 
approximately $4 million are to be incurred, of which 
approximately one-half, or $2 million, includes another 
S298,000 for planning and design, $320,000 for relocation 
and mitigation measures, approximately S100.000 for 
permits and fees and another $100,000 for art 
enrichment, and $600,000 for construction management 
and another S600,000 for the construction contingency. As 
noted above, the remaining approximately $2 million is 
for costs of issuance of the bonds, and funding of a 
capitalized interest fund and debt service reserve fund for 
the proposed Lease Revenue Bonds. As shown in 
Attachment I. in addition to the subject $8.5 million of 
lease revenue bonds, the remaining financing for the 
proposed project will come from $1,512,262 of 1994 
Parking Meter Revenue Bonds. 

6. According to Mr. Szeto, the proposed new North Beach 
Parking Garage would have a total of 203 self-parking 
spaces, which is an increase of 121 parking spaces over 
the 82 self-parking spaces available in the previous 
Garage. If valet parking is used, the Garage would have 
approximately 300 parking spaces, an increase of 185 
valet parking spaces over the approximately 115 available 
in the old Garage. However, Mr. Szeto reports that the 
proposed issuance of up to S8.5 million in Lease Revenue 
Bonds assumes that the Garage will be used for the 203 
self-parking vehicles. 

7. Mr. Szeto reports that the parking lot is currently being 
used by the Police Department for parking approximately 
40 Police and private vehicles in connection with the 
adjacent North Beach Police Station. Mr. Szeto advises 
that this is based on an informal agreement between the 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

67 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

October 13, 1999 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



DPT and the Police Department and neither the Parking 
Authority nor the DPT receives any revenues from the 
Police Department for their use of this parking lot. Mr. 
Szeto notes thai prior to the demolition of the old North 
Beach Parking Garage, the Police Department parked 
approximately 22 private vehicles in the old North Beach 
Parking Garage. Mr. Harry Quinn of the Real Estate 
Department reports thai once the construction begins on 
the new North Beach Parking Garage, the North Beach 
Police Station will use approximately 22 spaces in the 
City-owned Vallejo Street Garage, which is immediately 
opposite the proposed new North Beach Parking Garage. 
Mr. Quinn reports that the Police will likely occupy these 
spaces until construction of a new Police Station is 
completed on the Broadway Parcels which were recently 
acquired from Caltrans. 

8. Ms. Hollenbeck provided Attachment III, which 
identifies the net revenue coverage over the base rental 
payments for the proposed lease revenue bonds. Ms. 
Hollenbeck notes that tl draft documents since the 

actual interest costs, time period and related rental 
payments cannot he determined precisely until the bonds 
are actually sold. Ms. Hollenbeck advises however, that 
the interest rate is estimated at six percent over a 30-year 
bond period. 

As shown in Attachment III. if the proposed lease revenue 
bonds are sold in a principal amount of S8.5 million, at an 
estimated annual interest rate of six percent over a 30- 
year period, the City's total principal and interest cost 
will he $17,754,700, including S8.5 million of principal 
costs and $9,254,700 of interest payments. As indicated in 
Attachment III. the projected parking revenues from the 
North Beach Parking Garage, less the parking taxes and 
the operating expenses, are projected to cover the base 
annual rental payments on the lease revenue bonds every 
year, except for one year (Year 3). when a slight deficit of 
$14,011 is projected to occur. During every other year, a 
surplus is projected to occur, after the payment of the 
lease payments. Over the 30-year life of the bonds, the 
cumulative surplus in revenue is projected to be 
SI 1.390.384. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

68 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

October 13, 1999 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

The Budget Analyst notes that, in accordance with 
Proposition F and the proposed legislation, the City's 
General Fund will be responsible for paying the base 
rental payments on the $8.5 million lease revenue bonds. 
In turn, the City's Offstreet Parking Fund, which will 
receive the net operating revenues from the North Beach 
Parking Garage, will reimburse the City's General Fund 
for these payments. 

9. Ms. Theresa Alvarez of the City Attorney's Office 
reports that the proposed legislation includes a quit claim 
provision that is necessary because when the Parking 
Authority purchased the North Beach Parking Garage in 
1992, the grant deed was supposed to vest legal title with 
the Parking Authority. However, the grant deed 
inadvertently vested legal title with the City and County 
of San Francisco. The proposed quit claim provision will 
correct this error by transferring the legal title from the 
City and Count}- of San Francisco to the Parking 
Authority. 

Ms. Alvarez also advises that an Amendment of the 
Whole will be introduced at the October 13, 1999 Finance 
and Labor Committee Meeting, to make technical 
amendments to the proposed legislation, including 
incorporating various dates and changing the proposed 
ordinance to a resolution. 

Recommendation: Contingent on subsequent advice from the City Attorney's 

Office pertaining to further potential litigation, approval 
of the proposed resolution is a policy matter for the Board 
of Supervisors. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

69 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

October 13, 1999 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 




[rvey M. Rose 



cc: Supervisor Yee 

Supervisor Bierman 
President Ammiano 
Supervisor Becerril 
Supervisor Brown 
Supervisor Katz 
Supervisor Kaufman 
Supervisor Leno 
Supervisor Newsom 
Supervisor Teng 
Supervisor Yaki 
Clerk of the Board 
Controller 



Legislative Analyst 

Matthew Hymel 
Stephen Kawa 
Ted Lakey 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



OC1.-07' 99ITHU) 12 = 17 



CITY k CO OF S. F. PARKING DEPT 



TEL: 415 554 9854 



P. 002 



Attachment I 



North Beach Garage 
(Sources and Uses of Funds) 



Sources of Funds 



Parking Revenue Fund " — 

Series 19S4 Bonds - Project Fund 
Series 1999 Bonds for Construction 
Series 1999 Bonds for Financing + Reserves 

Totals 



Uses of Funds for 
Expenditures to Date 



5,350,315 
638,748 




Uses of Funds for 

Expenditures During 

Construction 



Total 



JL£12*262 
'6,506,183^ 



Planning & Design Costs 
Demolition 
Relocatlon/Mitigation/p g & e 
DBI Plan Check L Permits 
City Planning Fees 
Construction Management 
Site Work 

Pouring Concrete, Forming 1 Post Tension 

Exterior Details 

interior Details 

Art Enrichment 

Construction Contingency 

Property Acquisition 

Bond Costs + Reserves (1) 

Total 



946,964 
219,784 



20,641 

11,679 
4,700,000 



6,885,063 




1) Figure given by Public Finance 



Expenditures During 
Construction 

298,000 

320,000 

66,000 

44,602 

600,000 

235,000 

3,379,319 

1.231,000 

1.140,993 

106,000 

588,631 

1,884,817 
10.012.262 



5,360,319 
2,051,011 
6,605,1B3 
1,984,817 
,15.911,330 



Total 
1,244,964 
219,784 
320,000 
65,000 
44,502 
620,641 
235,000 
3,379,319 
1,231,000 
1,140,993 
116,679 
598,631 
4,700,000 
1,984,817 
_1S.911,330 



• » »•> .jcd" rrs— K"n/BLt 



1IMM-4SII 



Attarhment 11 
*-E6T b Cl/C C-2E8 




_ w n O 

s 2 2 a 



cr 



8 a) » o « r 
to M o. °. h "- 

iJ o" id o ° !2 

t? S I 1 s £ 

3 B Ol. I". *fc ^ 

irf?* * » « 

s 3 « o. ^ - 

3 * 2" fc" ^ 2 " 

o ^ o a 2 2 ?J " ^ 



o o o o o 

llilll ° 



1 



o o a 






o rx. P 



o< o 



s 3 S m ei. ". «. 

£ S m" m" <n « « 



si 



.- o- i a I 

* I 4 1 1 * lB 



Hi 

Q. « CC 




in in 

ii •-* 



on 
O 

S 



g 3 



z 
o 

p 

5 



of 

C D- 

ro a) 
U 







i§ c "i ^ 1 ° 

i 8 1 °- Is 

b < U g I I 

£ a s s m " 



1 


1 u D S 


^ 

$ 


I -D S «> 

Si 15 


J3 




! s S "S 


y 


5 IB Wl- 


^x 




I 





1 8 




£00 "d 



{•£86 l-SS SIM31 72 ld3Q OMMd d'S JO 03 




-07' 99 (THU) 10=17 CCSF PUBLIC FINANCE 



TEL : 4 15 554 4864 



Page 1 of 2 



"DRAFT 



$8,500,000 

Parking Authority of the City and County of San Francisco 

North Beach Parking Garage Project 

30-Year Lease Revenue Bond 


SOURCES OF FUNDS 

Par Amount of Bonds 


$ 
$ 

$ 


8,500,000.00 
1,416.67 

8,501,416.67 

175,633.20 
300,000.00 
1,416.67 
628,100.00 
891,083.33 
6,505,183.47 

8,501,416.67 


Accrued interest from 12/01/1999 to 12/02/1999 


TOTAL SOURCES 

USES OF FUNDS 

Total Underwriter's Discount (plus Bond Insurance) 

Costs of Issuance 


Deposit to Debt Service Fund 


Deposit to Debt Service Reserve Fund (DSRF) 


Deposit to Capitalized Interest (ClF) Fund 


Deposit to Project Construction Fund 

TOTAL USES 



The Knight Group 
San Francisco 



October 7, 1999 



73 



OCT. -(T 99 (THL'I 10 17 CCSF PUBLIC FINANCE 



TEL 415 554 4864 Page 2 of 2 

DRAFT 





San Francisco 


Parking Authority (North Beach Project) 










Net Revenue Coverage Over Base Rental Payments 












30-Year 


Lease Structu 


re 


















Ne Revenue 


3CYe»r 




I..-— 1- ■ ' 


Operating 


Fiscal 


Parking 


Partong 


Operating 


AvaiiaSJe 


Bast Renta' 


(DefidO 


Surplus/ 


Year 


Year 


Revenue (c) 


Taxes Expert*** (at 


lO'D'S 


Peynenr ft) 


Afte-D/S 


(Oeta:i 




199S-00 
















1 


2000-01 (a) 


260.392 


(52.078) 


(61350) 


146 963 




14f,963 


146.863 


2 


2001-02 (b) 


1,041 567 


(206.313) 


(245 400) 


587 854 


434 050 


93.604 


240.767 


3 


2002-03 


1.072 814 


(214.583) 


(252.762) 


605.469 


619500 


(14 011) 


226 756 


4 


2003-04 


1.104.998 


(221,000) 


J26C 345) 


623.654 


622 000 


1.654 


226410 


5 


2004-05 


1 160.248 


(232,050) 


(268.155) 


660.043 


623.900 


36.143 


264 554 


6 


2005-06 


1.196.056 


(23S.01 1) 


(276.200) 


679.845 


620 .350 


55495 


324.046 


7 


2006-07 


1. 230.907 


(246.181) 


(284.486) 


700.240 


£21350 


76.690 


402.936 


e 


2007-08 


1.267.835 


(253,567) 


(293.020) 


72' 247 


621.750 


99487 


502.436 


9 


2006-09 


1.305.870 


(261.174) 


(301.811) 


742.885 


621550 


12*325 


623.771 


10 


2009-10 


1.371.163 


(274.233) 


(310.865) 


786 065 


670.750 


165315 


769.066 


11 


2010-n 


1.412.236 


126Z460) 


(320191) 


809.647 


61S.350 


190797 


979 363 


12 


2011-12 


1.454.667 


(29C.933) 


(329.797) 


633.937 


617350 


216.587 


1.195.969 


13 


2012-13 


1.498.307 


(299 661) 


(338.691 ) 


856.955 


619,600 


236.355 


1 435.324 


14 


2013-14 


1.543.256 


(308,651) 


(349.882) 


664.723 


616.100 


268.623 


1.703.947 


15 


2014-15 


1 620.419 


(324.064) 


(360.376) 


935 957 


616,850 


319.107 


2023 055 


16 


2015-16 


1.669.032 


(333806) 


(371.190) 


964.036 


616700 


>C13£ 


2770 390 


17 


2016-17 


1719.103 


(343.621) 


(382.325) 


992.957 


615650 


377.307 


2.747.SS? 


18 


2017-16 


1.770 676 


(354.135) 


(393 795) 


1 022746 


61 8 550 


404 196 


3.151.693 


19 


2016-19 


1.623.796 


(364.759) 


(405.609) 


1.053 428 


615.400 


438.028 


3.569 921 


20 


2019-20 


1.914.986 


(362.997) 


(417,777) 


1.114.212 


616700 


496 012 


4,087.932 


21 


2020-21 


1.972.435 


(394 487) 


(430.310) 


1.147.636 


615800 


531 636 


4619770 


22 


2021-22 


2.031.608 


(406.322) 


(443720) 


1.182.067 


614.200 


567,867 


5.187637 


23 


2022-23 


2,092.557 


(418.511) 


(456 516) 


1.217.529 


616250 


601 279 


5.766.916 


24 


2023-24 


2155.333 


(431.067) 


(470.212) 


1254 055 


6V350 


642105 


6.431.021 


25 


2024-25 


2263.100 


(452.620) 


(484.316) 


1.326 162 


611,300 


714662 


7.145.663 


26 


2025-26 


2.330.993 


(466.199) 


(498.646; 


•..365.947 


814 000 


75* .947 


7.697.530 


27 


2026-27 


7400,823 


(460.185) 


(513.613) 


1. 406.925 


610.050 


"*96875 


8694.705 


28 


2027-28 


2.472.951 


(494 590) 


(529.227) 


1.449133 


609 450 


e3S683 


9.534.366 


29 


2028-29 


2547.139 


(509 428) 


(545104) 


1492.607 


607.050 


665 557 


10,419,945 


30 


2029-30 


2674,496 


(534 839) 


(581 45Ti 


1.578.138 


607.700 


970.439 


11.390.364 


TOTAL 










29 145.084 


17.754.700 


11 390.364 





(a) 3^a<K oegins commercial operation in Apr>: 2001 

(b) fly companion. Vallejo Garage (with 113 parking spaces) had actual parking raven* o! IT, 163000 in l=Yi6-99 

(c) Parting Revenue ts projected to grow at 3% par annum except tor years 5, 10, 15 20 2S ane 3D »rV. 5% proutn 
(<( Annual operating expanses am pro/ectcd to grom at i% per annum 

(e) Bate Rentals calculated at S% on 30-year Laese RMnia Sonus w i- 2' montra of captaicrao .niaratl 



TrwKnemCraup Inc 
S*nFrda*jo 



Osaok-7 1934 



74 




City and County of San Francisco 

Meeting Minutes 

,Finance and Labor Committee 

Members: Supervisors Leland Yee, Sue Bierman and Tom Ammiano 
Clerk: Mary Red 



City Hall 

1 Dr. Carlton B. 

Goodlett Place 

San Francisco, CA 

94102^689 



Wednesday, October 20, 1999 



10:00 AM 

Regular Meeting 



City Hall, Room 263 



Members Present: Leland Y. Yee, Sue Bierman, Tom Ammiano. 



Meeting Convened 

The meeting convened at 10:02 a.m. 

991852 [Lease and Use Agreement Modifications to allow eight (8) airlines to relocate all international flight 
operations from Central Terminal Building to a new International Terminal Building as part of the 
Airport Master Plan Expansion Program] 

Resolution approving modifications the terms of Airline/Airport Lease and Use Agreements between the City 
and various airlines to allow such airlines to relocate international flight operations to the New International 
Terminal. (Airport Commission) 

9/28/99, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance and Labor Committee. 
10/13/99, CONTINUED. Continued to October 20, 1999 
Continued to November 3, 1999. 
CONTINUED by the following vote: 
Ayes: 3 - Yee, Bierman, Ammiano 



991853 [New lease and operating agreements to allow eighteen (18) airlines to relocate all international flight 
operations from Central Terminal Building to a new International Terminal Building as part of the 
Airport Master Plan Expansion Program] 

Resolution approving the terms of lease and operating agreements between the City and various airlines to 
allow such airlines to relocate international flight operations to the New International Terminal. (Airport 
Commission) 

9/28/99, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance and Labor Committee 
10/13/99, CONTINUED. Continued to October 20, 1999. 
Continued to November 3 . 1999. 
CONTINUED by the following vote: 
Ayes: 3 - Yee, Bierman, Ammiano 



DOCUMENTS DEPT 



OCT 2 7 1999 

SAM FRAM^^^O 



City and County of San Francisco 



Printed at 3:08 PM on 10/71/99 



Finance and Labor Committet 



Meeting Minutes 



October 20, 1999 



991861 | Appropriating State and Federal funds to expand child welfare services, food stamp program and to 
provide aid payments for the Cash Assistance Program for Immigrants! 

Ordinance appropriating $12,690,062 of State and Federal Revenues to fund augmentation of Child Welfare 
Services, aid payments for the Cash Assistance Program for Immigrants (CAPI), expand food stamps outreach 
and eligibility determination and create 19.5 positions at the Department of Human Sen ices, and adjust 
revenue appropriations as necessary, for fiscal year 1999-2000. (Controller) 

(Companion measure to File 991862.) 

9/29/9'). RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance ind Labor Committee 

Heard in Committee Speakers Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst, Julie Hrenman. Department of Human 

Services. Amended to provide for retroactivity, reduce Afedi-l al/i M'l iid by $4,129,713, permanent salaries 

by S3. 396. fringe benefits by $849, and u> redut e the total request n> $8,556,104 

AMENDED by the following vote: 

Ayes: 2 - Yee. Bierman 

Absent: 1 - Ammiano 

Ordinance appropriating retroactively, $8,556,104 of State and Federal Revenues to fund augmentation of 
Child Welfare Sen ices, aid payments for the Cash Assistance Program for Immigrants (CAPI). expand food 
stamps outreach and eligibility determination and create 19.5 positions at the Department of Human Services, 
and adjust revenue appropriations as necessary, for fiscal year 1999-2000. (Controller) 

(Companion measure to File 991862 i 
RECOMMENDED As \MI NDEDb) the following \ote: 

Ayes: 2 - Yee. Bierman 

Absent: 1 - Ammiano 



991862 (s.il.u \ Ordinance Amendment. Dept. of Human Services! 

Ordinance amending Ordinance No 209-99 (Annual Salary Ordinance. 1999/2000). reflecting the creation of 
19.5 positions at the Department of Human Ser\ ices (Controller) 

(Companion measure to File 99 1 86 1 ) 

9/29/9'). Rl CETVI I) AND ASSIGNED lo Finance and Labor Committee 

Heard in Committee. Speakers Harvey Rose. Budget Analyst. Julie Brenman. Department of Human Senices 

RECOMMENDED by the following \ote: 

Ayes: 2 - Yee, Bierman 
Absent: 1 - Ammiano 



991880 [Government Funding. State Relief Funds| 
Mayor 

Ordinance appropriating S3, 10 1,242 in state relief funds for local governments to offset a shortfall in the state 
allocation of tobacco tax fund revenues to San Francisco and to provide funding for the California Healthcare 
for Indigents Program, at the Department of Public Health, for fiscal year 1999-2000. 
10/4/99, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance and Labor Committee 

Heard in Committee Speakers Harvey Rose. Budget Analyst. Monique Zmuda, Department of Public 
Health: Supervisor Yee. Ed Harrington. Controller 
RECOMMENDED by the following vote: 
Ayes: 3 - Yee, Bierman, Ammiano 



City and County of San Francisco 



Printed at 3:08 P\t on 107 1/99 



Finance and Labor Committee 



Meeting Minutes 



October 20, 1999 



991769 [Recreation and Park Department Bonds] 

Supervisors Newsom, Kaufman, Leno, Ammiano, Bierman, Yaki, Teng, Becerril, Brown, Katz 

Draft resolution determining and declaring that the public interest and necessity demand municipal 
improvements consisting of the acquisition, rehabilitation, renovation, improvement, construction or 
reconstruction by the City and County of San Francisco of parks and recreation facilities and properties, and 
all other works, property and structures necessary or convenient for the foregoing purposes, that the estimated 
cost of $1 10,000,000 for said municipal improvements is and will be too great to be paid out of the ordinary 
annual income and revenue of said City and County and will require the incurring of a bonded indebtedness; 
finding the proposed project is in conformity with the priority policies of Planning Code Section 101.1(b) and 
with the General Plan consistency requirement of Administrative Code Section 2 A. 53. 

(Fiscal impact.) 

9/21/99, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance and Labor Committee. 

Heard in Committee. Speakers: Harvey Rose. Budget Analyst; Supervisor Ammiano; Michael Farrah, Aide to 

Supervisor Newsom; Supervisor Yee; Joel Robinson, Acting General Manager, Recreation and Park 

Department; Supenisor Bierman. In Support: Chris Duderstadt. Opposed: Lloyd Schlaegel. 

AMENDED, AN AMENDMENT OF THE WHOLE BEARING SAME TITLE. 

Resolution determining and declaring that the public interest and necessity demand municipal improvements 
consisting of the acquisition, rehabilitation, renovation, improvement, construction or reconstruction by the 
City and County of San Francisco of parks and recreation facilities and properties, and all other works, 
property and structures necessary or convenient for the foregoing purposes, that the estimated cost of 
$1 10,000,000 for said municipal improvements is and will be too great to be paid out of the ordinary annual 
income and revenue of said City and County and will require the incurring of a bonded indebtedness; finding 
the proposed project is in conformity with the priority policies of Planning Code Section 101.1(b) and with the 
General Plan consistency requirement of Administrative Code Section 2A.53. 

(Fiscal impact.) 

RECOMMENDED AS AMENDED by the following vote: 

Ayes: 3 - Yee, Bierman, Ammiano 



991770 [California Academy of Science Bonds) 

Supervisors Yaki, Ammiano, Newsom, Brown, Becerril, Leno, Kaufman, Katz, Bierman, Teng, Yee 

Draft resolution determining and declaring that the public interest and necessity demand municipal 
improvements consisting of the acquisition, rehabilitation, renovation, improvement, construction or 
reconstruction by the City and County of San Francisco of the California Academy of Sciences, and all other 
works, property and structures necessary or convenient for the foregoing purposes, that the estimated cost of 
$87,980,000 for said municipal improvements is and will be too great to be paid out of the ordinary annual 
income and revenue of said City and County and will require the incurring of a bonded indebtedness; finding 
the proposed project is in conformity with the priority policies of Planning Code Section 101.1(b) and with the 
General Plan consistency requirement of Administrative Code Section 2A.53. 

(Fiscal impact.) 

9/22/99, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance and Labor Committee 

Heard in Committee. Speakers: Ha/vey Rose, Budget Analyst; Supenisor Ammiano; Patrick Kociolck. 

Executive Director, Academy of Science. Opposed: Lloyd Schlaegel. 

AMENDED, AN AMENDMENT OF THE WHOLE BEARING NEW TITLE. 



City and County of San Francisco 



Printed at 3:08 PM on HV21/99 



Finance and Labor Committee Meeting Minute* October 21), It')') 

Resolution determining and declaring that the public interest and necessity demand municipal improvements 
consisting of the acquisition, rehabilitation, renovation, improvement, construction or reconstruction by the 
City and County of San Francisco of the California Academy of Sciences, and all other works, property and 
structures necessary or convenient for the foregoing purposes, that the estimated cost of $87,445,000 for said 
municipal improvements is and will be too great to be paid out of the ordinary annual income and revenue of 
said City and County and will require the incurring of a bonded indebtedness; finding the proposed project is 
in conformity with the priority policies of Planning Code Section 101.1(b) and with the General Plan 
consistency requirement of Administrative Code Section 2A.S3. 

(Fiscal impact.) 

RECOMMENDED AS AMENDED by the following vote: 
Ayes: 3 - Yee, Bierman, Ammiano 



991859 |Purchase of property at 3rd and Arthur Streets to npaad the Pump Station built in the 1960's. to 
comply with the current Regional Water Quality Control Board permit requirements! 
Resolution authorizing acquisition of Lots 3 and 4 m Assessor's Block 4501 lor expansion ol the Southeast 
Water Pollution Control Plant Booster Pump Station, and adopt findings pursuant to P lanning ( ode Section 
101.1. (Real Estate Department) 

(Categorically exempt from environmental review and consistent with the eight priority policies of the 
Planning Code Section 1 01.1.) 

'i :<> <><>, ri i I rvi DAND \SSIONED to Finance and Labor Committee 
CONTINUED TO CALL OE THE CHAIR by the following Note: 
Ayes: 3 - Yee, Bierman, Ammiano 



991860 (Extension and modification of PTC /Municipal Railway Lease at 23rd and Illinois Streets for storage of 
street cars, materials and equipment at a monthly rate of S31.800| 

Resolution authori/mg an extension and modification of an existing lease of real property at Twenty Third and 
Illinois Streets for the Public Transportation Commission. Municipal Railway (Real Estate Department I 
9/29/99, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance and 1 abor Comminee 

Heard in Committee Speakers Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst, Harry Quinn. Department <>i Real Estate. 
RECOMMENDED by the following vote: 

Ayes: 2 - Yee, Bierman 

Absent: 1 - Ammiano 



991867 | Reset \ id Funds. Department of Public \\ orks| 

Hearing to consider release of reserved funds. Department of Public Works, in the amount of S785. 000 (Fiscal 

Year 1999-2000 Budget), to fund the services of Competent Building. Inc.. contractor for the Japantown Peace 

Plaza Project. (Department of Public Works) 

9/29/99, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance and Labor Committee 

Heard in Committee. Speakers Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst; Supervisor Yee; Gary Hoy. Department of 

Public Works. In Support; Judy Nihei, Coordinator. Japantown Planning. Preservation & Development Task 

Force; Geri Handa. Japantown Peace Plaza Task Force. 

APPROVED AND FILED by the following vote: 

Ayes: 2 - Yee, Bierman 

Absent: 1 - Ammiano 



City and County of San Francisco 4 Printed at 3:03 PS1 on 10 11 V9 



Finance and Labor Committee 



Meeting Minutes 



October 20, 1999 



991712 [Amendment(s) to the architectural and engineering agreement for the Moscone Center Expansion 
Project] 

Resolution authorizing the Director of Administrative Services to execute amendment(s) to design agreement 
increasing the agreement sum from S9, 526, 326. 38 to $14,026,326.38. (City Administrator) 

(Fiscal impact.) 

9/10/99, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance and Labor Committee 

10/6/99, RECOMMENDED. Heard in Committee. Speakers: Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst; Leonard Tom, Director of Finance, Moscone 

Center Expansion Project. 

10/12/99, RE-REFERRED to Finance and Labor Committee. Supervisor Yee requested this matter be re-referred to committee. 

Heard in Committee. Speakers: Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst; Supervisor Yee; Leonard Tom, Director of 
Finance, Moscone Center Expansion Project; George Wong, Deputy City Attorney; Linda Chin, Human 
Rights Commission; Ray Fong, Project Manager; Ed Tong. 
RECOMMENDED by the following vote: 

Ayes: 2 - Yee, Bierman 
Absent: 1 - Ammiano 



991646 [Interim Controls, LiveAVork] 
Supervisors Ammiano, Bierman 

Resolution imposing Interim Zoning Controls for a period of eight months to add live/work units to the 
definition of residential use in Article 8, Section S90.88 of the Planning Code; to delete the exemption from 
height limits for live/work units set forth in Planning Code Section 260(b)(2)(O), and to delete live/work units 
from the list of other uses set forth in Planning Code Section 227(p) and (q) and include live/work units in the 
list of dwellings set forth in Section 215; adopting findings pursuant to Planning Code Section 101.1. 
8/23/99, ASSIGNED UNDER 30 DAY RULE to Finance and Labor Committee, expires on 9/22/1999. 8/31/99 - Transmitted to the 
Director of Planning for environmental review, pursuant to Section 306.7(c) of the Planning Code. 

10/6/99 - From Planning Department, Certificate of Determination of Exemption/Exclusion from Environmental Review dated 10/4/99. 
10/8/99, SUBSTITUTED. Substituted by the City Attorney bearing new title, 10/8/99. 

10/8/99, ASSIGNED to Finance and Labor Committee. With request this item be calendared for the October 20, 1999 meeting. 
CONTINUED TO CALL OF THE CHAIR by the following vote: 
Ayes: 3 - Yee, Bierman, Ammiano 



991335 [Medical Services at San Francisco Jail System] 
Supervisors Yee, Ammiano, Bierman 

Hearing to assess the true nature of medical attention to Vincent Hines and its relationship in his death in the 
San Francisco jail system. 

7/6/99, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Public Health and Environment Committee 
7/15/99, TRANSFERRED to Finance and Labor Committee. 

7/21/99, CONTINUED TO CALL OF THE CHAIR. Supervisor Bierman added as cosponsor. 

Heard in Committee. Speakers: Supervisor Ammiano; Van Jones, Executive Director, Ella Baker Center for 
Human Rights; Loretta Dorsey; Devi Coyle, Journalist, S. F. Bay View Newspaper; Shawna Virago, 
Tranzaction; Maria Laboy, Volunteer, Prison Legal Services; Michael Rebb; Susan Shah. Tranzaction; 
Michael Marcum, Assistant Sheriff; Supervisor Bierman; Ron Perez, Ombudsman. Sheriffs Department; 
Supervisor Yee. 

CONTINUED TO CALL OF THE CHAIR by the following vote: 
Ayes: 3 - Yee, Bierman, Ammiano 



City and County of San Francisco 



Printed at 3:08 PM on IW2IV9 



Finance and Labor Committee Meeting \linutc\ October 20, 1999 

ADJOURNMENT 

The meeting adjourned at 12 16 p.m. 



City and County of San Francisco 6 Printed at 3: M PM on Id^lV) 



Public Library, Gov't Information Ctr.. 5 th Fir. 
Attn: Susan Horn, Dept. 41 



it 



n 



CITY AND COUNTY 




OF SAN FRANCISCO 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

1390 Market Street, Suite 1025, San Francisco, CA 94102 (415) 554-7642 
FAX (415) 252-0461 



TO: .Finance and Labor Committee 

FROM: ^Budget Analyst 

SUBJECT: October 20, 1999 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

Item 1 - File 99-1852 



October 15, 1999 DOCUMENTS DEPT. 

OCT 1 9 1399 



SAN FRANCISCO 
PUBLIC LIBRARY 



Note: This item was continued by the Finance and Labor Committee at its meeting 
of October 13, 1999. 



Department: 
Item: 



Location: 

Purposes of Lease 
Modifications: 



Airport Commission 

Resolution approving modifications to the Airline/Airport 
Lease and Use Agreements between the City and eight 
airlines to allow these airlines to relocate their 
international flight operations to the new International 
Terminal Building at the San Francisco International 
Airport. 

New International Terminal Building (ITB) at the Airport 



The proposed resolution would modify the existing Lease 
and Use Agreements with the eight airlines listed below. 
The existing Lease and Use Agreements were approved 
by the Board of Supervisors in 1981. The lease 
modifications would permit the Airport to: 

(a) relocate the eight airlines' international flight 
operations to the new ITB from the current 
International Terminal, which will then be converted 
for domestic flights. The current International 
Terminal is referred to in this report as the Central 
Terminal Building (CTB); 



Memo to the Finance and Labor Committee 

October 20, 1999 Meeting of the Finance and Labor Committee 



Lessor: 



Lessees: 



(b) change certain types of airline rental space from 
exclusive use to joint use; 

(c) employ procedures for reducing, relocating, and/or 
reallocating exclusive use space in certain 
circumstances; 

(d) preserve the rights of the eight airlines with Lease and 
Use Agreements to exclusive use space approximately 
equal to the exclusive use space they will be 
relinquishing in the CTB when they move to the new 
ITB; 

(e) terminate a lease if an airline voluntarily ceases its 
international flight operations at the Airport, 
contingent on Board of Supervisors approval of such 
lease terminations; and 

(f) permit United Airlines to lease increased exclusive use 
space in the North Terminal Building. 

City and County of San Francisco by and through the 
Airport Commission. 

Alaska Airlines 
China Airlines 
Japan Airlines Co., LTD 
Mexicana Airlines 
Northwest Airlines 
Philippine Airlines, Inc. 
Singapore Airlines 
United Airlines 



Square Footage: 



There are three sets of space being leased: (1) 676.260 
square feet of joint use space in the new ITB, (2) 93,594 
square feet of exclusive use space in the new ITB. and (3) 
451,492 square feet of United Airlines' exclusive use space 
in the North Terminal Building. 

(1) Joint use space in the new ITB: According to Ms. 
Dorothy Schimke of the Airport, "joint use space" is 
airline rental space in a facility owned by the Airport 
which is leased to more than one airline for the shared 
use of all the airlines leasing that space. In the new ITB. 
26 airlines will collectively lease 676.260 square feet of 
joint use space. These 26 airlines comprise (a) the eight 
airlines listed above, and (b) 18 other airlines. The 
Airport's proposal to enter into Lease and Operating 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to the Finance and Labor Committee 

October 20, 1999 Meeting of the Finance and Labor Committee 



Agreements with those 18 other airlines is the subject of a 
separate resolution (see Item 9, File 99-1853, of this 
report to the Finance and Labor Committee). 

The 26 airlines will pay rent for this 676,260 square feet 
of joint use space in accordance with Airport rates and 
charges, as set out in the Lease and Use Agreements. 
This joint use space is divided into the rental categories 
shown in Attachment I, provided by the Airport. 

Attachment I shows (a) an estimated 548,691 square foot, 
or approximately 430 percent, increase in the joint use 
space to be leased by the 26 airlines, from the current 
127,569 square feet of joint use space in the CTB to the 
676,260 square feet of joint use space in the new ITB, and 
(b) an estimated $18,946,802, or approximately 178 
percent, increase in the rent to be paid by those 26 
airlines, from an estimated $10,627,232 in FY 1999-2000 
to an estimated $29,574,034 in FY 2000-2001. 

As Alaska Airlines will only use the new ITB for 
international arrivals from Mexico, it will be a joint use 
space lessee for 360,818 square feet of the total 676,260 
square feet of joint use space. Therefore Alaska Airlines 
will be a joint use lessee for just the baggage claim, 
Federal Inspection Service, and inbound baggage 
unloading areas, and any other joint use spaces directly 
related to international arrivals. The amount of 360,818 
square feet represents approximately 53.4 percent of the 
total joint use space available. 

(2) Exclusive use space in the new ITB: Exclusive 
use space in the new ITB can consist of (a) airline ticket, 
baggage service, ramp operations, and administrative 
offices, (b) VIP clubrooms, and/or (c) other support space. 
The eight airlines will rent the amounts of exclusive use 
space in the new ITB as set forth in Attachment II, 
provided by the Airport. Attachment II shows (a) an 
estimated 24,048 square foot, or approximately 34.6 
percent, increase in the exclusive use space to be leased 
by the eight airlines, from the current 69,546 square feet 
of exclusive use space in the CTB to the 93,594 square 
feet of exclusive use space in the new ITB, and (b) an 
estimated $895,233, or approximately 16 percent, 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

3 



Memo to the Finance and Labor Committee 

October 20, 1999 Meeting of the Finance and Labor Committee 

decrease in the rent to be paid by those eight airlines for 
their exclusive use space, from an estimated $5,600,856 in 
FY 1999-2000 to an estimated $4,705,623 in FY 2000- 
2001. According to Ms. Schimke, the rental rates are 
calculated on a cost recovery basis, as prescribed in the 
Lease and Use Agreement and explained in Attachment 
VI. 

(3) United Airlines exclusive use space in the North 
Terminal Building: The modification to United 
Airlines' Lease and Use Agreement will also cover an 
increase of 116,939 square feet, or approximately 35 
percent, in the exclusive use space leased by United 
Airlines in the North Terminal Building, from 334,553 
square feet to 451,492 square feet. This 35 percent 
increase in exclusive use space is to provide adequate 
space for United Airlines' new automated baggage system 
for its domestic flight operations at the North Terminal 
Building (see Comment No. 8 below). The additional 
space is primarily Category IV baggage handling areas 
which United Airlines has taken over incrementally as it 
installed its new baggage system. According to Ms. 
Schimke, the Airport will be billing United Airlines for 
this additional space retroactively to July of 1999. As a 
result of this additional United Airlines rental space in 
the North Terminal Building, the Airport expects to 
realize from United Airlines additional rental revenue of 
$3,994,608 in FY 1999-2000, and $2,365,967 in FY 2000- 
2001. 

Annual Airline 

Lease Revenue: The Airport estimates that it will realize $37,161,803 in 

airline lease revenue in FY 2000-2001 from the new ITB's 
total airline rental space from all of the 26 airlines. Of 
this amount, the Airport will realize an estimated 
$29,574,034. or approximately 79.6 percent, from the 
676.260 square feet of joint use space leased to all 26 
airlines with international flight operations, as shown in 
Attachment I. Of the estimated balance of $7,587,769, or 
approximately 20.4 percent, which the Airport estimates 
that it will realize from rental of exclusive use space, an 
estimated $4,705,623 will be paid by the eight airlines 
with Lease and Use Agreements (as shown in Attachment 
II), and an estimated $2,882,146 will be paid by the 18 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

4 



Memo to the Finance and Labor Committee 

October 20, 1999 Meeting of the Finance and Labor Committee 



airlines with Lease and Operating Agreements (as shown 
in Attachment II of Item 9, File 99-1853, in this report to 
the Finance and Labor Committee). 

The table below compares the estimated FY 2000-2001 
airline lease revenues from the new ITB with the 
estimated airline lease revenues from the CTB in FY 
1999-2000. Overall, the Airport anticipates a 

$19,082,405, or 106 percent, increase in airline lease 
revenues in FY 2000-2001 from the 26 airlines which 
have international flight operations at the Airport. (This 
table covers Items 8 and 9, Files 99-1852 and 99-1853, of 
this report to the Finance and Labor Committee.) 





CTB 
Square 

Feet 


Estimated 

ITB 

Square 

Feet 


Estimated % 
Difference in 
Square Feet 


Estimated 
FY 1999- 

2000 Lease 
Revenue 


Estimated 
FY 2000- 

2001 Lease 
Revenue 


Estimated % 

Difference in 

Lease 

Revenue 


Joint Use Space 


127,569 


676.260 




430.0% 


$10,627,232 


$29,574,034 


178% 


Lease & Use 
Agreement 
Exclusive Use 
Space 


69,546 


93.594 




35% 


5,600.856 


4,705,623 


(16%) 


Lease & 
Operating 
Agreement 
Exclusive Use 
Space 

TOTAL 


21,284 


55,126 




159% 
278% 


1,851,310 


2,882.146 


56% 
106% 


218,399 


824.980 


$18,079,398 


$37,161,803 



The Airport also expects, as a result of the increase in the 
United Airlines exclusive use space in the North Terminal 
Building, to realize an additional $3,994,608 in airline 
lease revenue in FY 1999-2000, and $2,365,967 in FY' 
2000-2001 from United Airlines. 



Approval of both Files 99-1852 and 99-1853 will result in 
total estimated airline lease revenues for the Airport of 
$37,161,803 from the new ITB in FY* 2000-2001. This 
represents an estimated increase of $19,082,405 over the 
estimated airline lease revenues for the Airport of 
$18,079,398 from the CTB in FY* 1999-2000. This 
increase comprises the estimated additional (a) 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to the Finance and Labor Commute- 

October 20, 1999 Meeting of the Finance and Labor Committee 



SI 8.946,802 for joint use space in the new ITB, and (b) 
$1,030,836 for Lease and Operating Agreement airlines' 
exclusive use space in the new ITB (as described in Item 
9, File 99-1853 of this report to the Finance and Labor 
Committee), offset by (c) a decrease of $895,233 in the 
revenues from Lease and Use Agreement airlines' 
exclusive use space in the new ITB. Furthermore, 
approval of File 99-1852 will result in additional airline 
lease revenue for the Airport of an estimated $2,365,967 
in FY 2000-2001 from United Airlines' increased exclusive 
use space in the North Terminal Building. The Airport 
therefore estimates that it will receive additional airline 
lease revenues in the amount of $21,448,372 in FY' 2000- 
2001. 



Term of 
Modified Leases: 



Each of the proposed modifications to the Lease and Use 
Agreements between the City and the eight airlines will 
take effect upon full execution by the parties and final 
approval by the Board of Supervisors. All eight Lease and 
Use Agreements terminate on June 30. 2011. 



Right of Renewal: 



None. 



Maintenance and 
Operations: 



The respective responsibilities of the City and the eight 
airlines for maintenance and operations are contained in 
Attachment IV, provided by the Airport. Ms. Schimke 
states that the Airport's airline rental space rates are 
designed to cover all of the Airport's maintenance and 
operations overhead costs which are not covered by 
revenue from the Airport's concessions or other non- 
airline revenues. 



Comments: 



1. As part of the Airport's Master Plan Expansion 
Program, the .Airport is constructing a new ITB which is 
scheduled for completion in May of 2000. All 
international flight operations currently conducted by the 
26 airlines in the CTB. including those of the eight 
airlines under this subject resolution, will be relocated to 
the new ITB, allowing the CTB to be used as a third 
domestic terminal, according to Mr. Gary Franzella of the 
Airport. Mr. Franzella states that the reassignment of 
the CTB as a third terminal for domestic flight operations 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

6 



Memo to the Finance and Labor Committee 

October 20, 1999 Meeting of the Finance and Labor Committee 



and the opening of the new ITB as a fourth terminal will 
enable the Airport to increase the total number of 
passengers that the Airport can handle from an estimated 
40 million in 1999, to an estimated 51 million m 2006, an 
increase of 27.5 percent. 

2. Of the 26 airlines which will relocate their 
international flight operations to the new ITB, eight 
airlines, which are the subject of this resolution, have 
existing Lease and Use Agreements, effective July 1, 
1981. These Lease and Use Agreements were previously 
approved by the Board of Supervisors. They are due to 
expire on June 30, 2011. Proposed modifications to these 
eight Lease and Use Agreements are the subject of this 
resolution. 

3. Of the 26 airlines which will relocate their 
international flight operations to the new ITB, 18 airlines 
are the subject of Item 9, File 99-1853, of this October 13 
report to the Finance and Labor Committee. 

4. According to Mr. Franzella, in negotiating the 
proposed modifications to the Lease and Use Agreements, 
the Airport had the following objectives: 

(a) To relocate the eight airlines' international flight 
operations from the CTB to the new ITB; 

(b) To apply a joint use approach to as much space in the 
new ITB as possible, to maintain flexibility to address 
changes in the airline industry and accommodate 
increased international traffic demands; 

(c) To provide a mechanism for reducing, relocating, 
and/or reallocating exclusive use space, as described in 
Attachment III, provided by the Airport; 

(d) To preserve the rights of the eight airlines with Lease 
and Use Agreements to exclusive use space 
approximately equal to the exclusive use space they 
will be relinquishing in the CTB when they move to 
the new ITB. The replacement exclusive use space 
will be designated as "Entitlement Space" which may 
only be reduced or relocated through mutual 
agreement or the Airport's Right of Reaccess, as 
described in Attachment III; 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

7 



Memo to the Finance and Labor Committee 

October 20, 1999 Meeting of the Finance and Labor Committee 



(e) To designate any exclusive use space under an 
airline's Lease and Use Agreement that is in excess of 
(i) the exclusive use space relinquished by that airline 
in the CTB, and (ii) MP clubroom space, as "Non- 
Entitlement Space", which could be reduced, relocated, 
and/or reallocated in accordance with the reallocation 
procedures described in Attachment III; 

(f) To be able to terminate an airline's lease if the lessee 
voluntarily ceases international flight operations at 
the Airport, contingent on Board of Supervisors 
approval of such lease terminations; and 

(g) To permit United Airlines to make changes to its 
exclusive use space in the North Terminal Building to 
accommodate expansion and modernization of its 
baggage system and other operating space. 

5. Under the proposed resolution, the Airport would be 
authorized to modify the allocation of exclusive use space 
in the new ITB without further approval from the Board 
of Supervisors, as long as the modifications are consistent 
with the provisions contained in Attachment III. All 
other modifications to airlines' allocations of exclusive use 
space would require Board of Supervisors approval. 

6. Under the existing Lease and Use Agreements with 
the subject eight airlines, joint use space includes only 
gate hold-rooms, baggage handling and baggage claim 
areas, and Federal Inspection Service areas. The joint 
use space approach is being expanded in the new ITB. 
According to Mr. Franzella. all of the new ITB's 168 ticket 
counters will be designated as joint use spaces, compared 
with only eight of the 111 ticket counters currently 
designated as joint use space in the CTB. The remaining 
103 CTB ticket counters are exclusive use spaces under 
the existing Lease and Use Agreements. Mr. Franzella 
also states that all 24 gate hold-rooms in the new ITB will 
be designated as joint use spaces, whereas in the CTB 
United Airlines has exclusive use space rights over five of 
the CTB's ten gate hold-rooms. 

7. As explained in Attachment V, provided by the 
Airport, scheduling of joint use space in the new ITB will 
be managed, under the Airport's oversight, by SFO 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to the Finance and Labor Committee 

October 20, 1999 Meeting of the Finance and Labor Committee 



Terminal Equipment Company, LLC (SFOTEC), a 
company to be formed by the 26 airlines. 

8. L T nited Airlines' Lease and Use Agreement also 
provides for a modification in relation to United Airlines' 
leasing of exclusive use space in the North Terminal 
Building space. This is primarily the result of United 
Airlines' installation of a new automated baggage system 
under certain North Terminal Building gates, in spaces 
that had not been previously leased to any airline. The 
space is now primarily designated as Category IV baggage 
handling areas. As a result of this additional United 
Airlines rental space in the North Terminal Building, the 
Airport expects to realize from United Airlines an 
additional $3,994,608 in airline lease revenues in FY 
1999-2000, and $2,365,967 in FY 2000-2001. 

9. Execution copies of the proposed modifications to the 
Lease and Use Agreements were sent to the airlines on 
September 2, 1999. Final approval is contingent on the 
Human Rights Commission's determination of each 
airline's compliance with, or exemption from, the 
requirements of San Francisco's Equal Benefits 
Ordinance. Ms. Schimke advises that all eight airlines 
are currently in various stages of obtaining certification of 
their compliance with, or exemption from, that 
ordinance's requirements, and that the Airport 
anticipates that all eight will comply. 

10. According to Mr. Franzella, a phased occupancy of 
the subject space is commencing on November 1, 1999 at 
which time United Airlines will be able to begin tenant 
improvements of its exclusive use spaces in the new ITB. 
All the other airlines which have exclusive use spaces will 
be able to commence their tenant improvements no later 
than January 1, 2000. As previously noted, the new ITB 
is scheduled to open in May of 2000. While the lessees 
are not required to make a minimum investment per 
square foot in the tenant improvement construction of 
their exclusive use spaces, they are required to meet the 
requirements of the relevant construction codes. 
Northwest Airlines and LTnited Airlines will construct 
their own tenant improvements. China Airlines and 
Singapore Airlines will construct their MP clubrooms. All 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

9 



Memo to the Finance and Labor Committee 

October 20, 1999 Meeting of the Finance and Labor Committee 



other tenant improvements for Lease and Use Agreement 
airlines will be performed under a consolidated contract 
awarded by the Airport's Airline Liaison Office in order to 
minimize potential coordination problems. Construction 
of all joint use space will be the responsibility of the 
Airport. 

11. The airlines' payment of rents for the new ITB space 
will commence on the date the new ITB is open and 
operational, as determined by the Airport Director. On 
that date, the airlines' rental payments for the CTB cease. 
Under the proposed modifications to their Lease and Use 
Agreements, the eight airlines will have up to 90 days 
after they begin paying rent for their new ITB space to 
remove their equipment from their exclusive use space in 
the CTB. 

12. All lessees will pay rent for their new ITB space in 
accordance with the Airport's rates and charges for airline 
rental space. These are determined annually by the 
Aii-port using the rates and charges methodology 
prescribed in the Lease and Use Agreements, as 
previously approved by the Board of Supervisors, and 
contained in Attachment VI, provided by the Airport. The 
division between the airlines of the rent payable for the 
new ITB's joint use space wdl be determined on the basis 
of a "Joint Use Formula" as explained in Attachment MI. 
provided by the Airport. 

13. In summary, the Airport estimates that approval of 
both Files 99-1852 and 99-1853 will result in total 
estimated airline lease revenues for the Airport of 
$37,161,803 from the new ITB in FY 2000-2001, an 
increase of 519,082,405 over the estimated airline lease 
revenues for the Airport of $18,079,398 from the CTB in 
FY 1999-2000. Furthermore, approval of File 99-1852 
will result in additional airline lease revenue for the 
Airport of an estimated $2,365,967 in FY 2000-2001 from 
United Airlines' increased exclusive use space in the 
North Terminal Building. The Airport therefore 
estimates that it will receive additional airline lease 
revenues in the amount of $21,448,372 in FY 2000-2001. 



BOARD OF SUPERMSORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

10 



Memo to the Finance and Labor Committee 

October 20, 1999 Meeting of the Finance and Labor Committee 

Recommendation: Approve the proposed resolution, contingent on the 

airlines' compliance with the City's Equal Benefits 
Ordinance. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

11 



Attachment I 



< 
V) 

-o 

c 
ro 

a> 
in 

TO 

a> 



ca 



ra w a) 
hi LU Q 1 (3 



d 




H Q' 



3 



L_ 



0! 



o a 


LO 


51 


CO 






CO Q' 






o 




CT> 




CM 


4 


o 



- 
cc 



■<3- 

CO 

— 



o 

CO 



-— N- 



ro 
CO 



— 


CO 




o 


LO 


CO 


Z 


to 


h~ 


o 




T 


CO 


LO 


T- 


•<3- 


CNJ 


CO 


o 


CO 


a> 


f 


CO 


o 


o 


co 


CO 


•«» 


CM 


CO 


•*— 


h~ 


* 


en 


to 


m 


kfi 


-r 




CD 




&* 




CM 



ED 

3 
OB 



EC 



OC 
CO 

-: 



r-~ 


CD 


CO 


o 


CO 


CM 


CO 


o 


CO 


O 


CO 


CM 


,— 


CO 


1— 


CO 


^ — 


N- 




r- 




CM 




O 



a> 


CO 


o 


CM 


CM 


1*- 


to 


n 


CO 


O 




CM 


CO 


LO 




r*- 


CO 


LO 




CN 


to 


o 




O 



o » 



•i K 


D 
X 


CO 

5 


o 

(A 

o 


i 












8, 6 

cc w 
01 c 


a 
2 


CD 
(A 
</! 
CD 


S 

■ 





= D 


r- 








m o 


,.- 




O 


- 




- 










0' 






\ 












>» - 


re 


(A 


>. 


c/) 












o re 






o 


O 


0> !r 














> 
















CO © 










O L. 




CD 


U 


3 






e cc • 



to 


S 




:. 


- 










— 


i 






a 




- 


1 




c 












.-. 






y 


r. 




M 

□ 


- 

IS. 

- 






- 
















£ 


- 




— 


■J. 






= 






* 
















■ 


y 


o 




3 






N 


u 


i 


r. 




■ 


3 




: 


ft 


~ 


— 


-. 




- 


> 


< 


■ 
rr 


— 


1 




£ 




: 








c 


rc 




3 




.2 


- 








-j 


— 


c 


CB 


C 
■ 


u. 

: 


: 




■ 


Q 




- 
















- 




'T 


- 





;= 






- 


a 


c 





< 


- 




: 




, 


■ 




c 


J 


- 


: 


— 


a 






- 


— 


■ 


rr 




















-: 


■ 


z 




i 


— i 


■ 


. 








- 






i 


■-: 


u 

■ 


ID 


u-, 

- 


u 


CM 


o 


1 






— 


~- 


— 


■ 


c 


- 


— 


■ 








•a 






a> 




o 


■ 






CO 

1 




a> 

a 


>l 


re 


■ 








- 
> 


O 










0) 


— 


B 

r 






□ 


i 


V 


(J 


a 




















O 


CD 

o 


a 

"5 


— 
< 


tn 


= 


© 


0) 


o 




in 






3 


JS 


c 


— ; 


a> 


3 




- 


■ 


D 




a 


— > 


a> 






> 


ja 


CD 


■ 


t- 





01 






> 




0) 


D 

— 


i 


re 




a> 


I 


a> 


~ 


Q. 


= 


4, 



'— a — -° 5 

~ '■= 

£ ■a 

? 5 

"tr; O 

& .= 

S E 

a- r 



3 


>« 










. 


. 


Q 




r 


— 


N 


~ 


> 


a 



12 



Attachment TT 



T3 

C 

re 

a 
w 

CO 






o 






T- 








O 


3 














o 


O 






o 


> 






>■ 

LL 




vO ^p ^o ^p 

<r_LOh~o^COCM°^ 

( Y CO CO C3J t- CM ^tf 


o 


*3 
5 


1 


o 


O 


1 






o 








a 






>- 


^ 






u. 


^ 






c 


cr 






o 
.52 


3 

o 


^? >S >S S? V? s? v° 
-<• O^ ° ° O^ O^ O^ O^ 

$^^^LOCMCO^ 


^p 

CO 


re 

a. 


i 


Za>£-to^ala>o 


^ 


1 


m c^i "<7 co co •<— co 


CO 




o 






5 
o 


1 






T— 


co; 


OrO-i-OCNi-COCN 


CO 


o 


C"j 


WSrocOMONCM 


CM 


o 
o 


o 


r-- cnj t- co ^r O) ^j- 

"S" t- CO O 0> t- LO 


CD 

LO~ 


>- 


■ 


O CM CO LO CM LO T- 


O 


II 


~c^ 


CM LO v- ^J- CO CO CO 


r-_ 




3 




rf" 


m 


ff 


feO- 


fee 


TJ 








O 
















re 








<§ 


OCOCTJCOOOiOOCN 


"« 


s 


CM O CO CO O t- CO 


en 


C/) 




O CO n N CM O N 


in 


LU 




LO a> co co co co co 


co" 






LO 


O) 


1- 








m 


:- 








2 


roo'-os^nco 


CO 




C3 


i-n^rocoT-Ttco 


in 




— 


•^^-ooLor^LOcoco 


CO 


CO 

ffl 









3 


OOCOCMt-LOCOOO 


o 


S O) N LO CNJ CO O) O 


o 


re 


» cnj o_ co ^ n ^r lo 


CO 


K 




\^7" , t^" t^ - tr7 feO" ^j 


in 


o 




fee fee 


be 


o 
















en 








o> 








>- 

LL 










r^ojr^o^-CMcocM 


CO 




CMLON-t-cOCOCMCM 


•<3- 


CD 


* 


O'-^ONTinm 

CO CO ^ •* ^f LO CO 


UO 

of 




T- CO 


CO 


O 


- 










Issiiil! 












LL 
Z 

E 


~ -E £ co w en £ i 

<L «s 5 - y ^ =»- £ © 

J5 J= £ 5 o 2 £ c 


< 

1- 
O 




< 


] <Un5ZD.mD 


I- 



ffl T3 



5 -5 



13 






:A DErARTKE! 



Av'lA" IGKT BE! 



Airport 
Comnitsion 
City and County 
o! San FnnctlCO 
Willit L Brown, Jr 
Mayor 

henry £. Sermon 
Praiidem 

Larry Mauoia 
Vice President 

Michau: S Smjnsry 

Linda S Crayron 

Caryl ho 

JOHN L MARTIN 
Airoon Dirscicr 




■ -: 

Page I or 2 



San Francisco International Airport 



bAlfWAr TO TMl PACIMC 



REDUCTION. RELOCATON. AND/OR REAI.I Q(, A I ION 
OF EXCLUSIVE USE SPACE 



A. 



When required by a significant shift in market share or 10 accommodate a new 
airline, the Airport can reduce, relocate, and/or reallocate exclusive use space in 
accordance with the procedures described below. 

.Airline Ticket Office (ATO) Procedures 

• ATOs arc the ticket counter support offices located on Floors 3 and 3M of the 
newITB. 

• ATO space may be reduced, relocated, and/or reallocated in conjunction with 
reallocation of uckct counter prcferenual use assignments, which arc decided 
by SFOTEC, with Airport oversight, based on flight activity and new JTB 
Ticket Counter Management Protocols. 

• A key objective of the new ITB Ticket Counter Management Protocols is to 
provide each airline with a regular check-in location, with the maximum 
number of positions desired (if available). 

• Reduction, relocation, and/or reallocation of ATO space held by airlines under 
Lease and Use Agreements will occur only after the City has determined that 
(1) there is no unassigned ATO space on Floors 3 or 3M, (2) there is no ATO 
space that may be recovered for reassignment from airlines with space permits, 
(3) there is no ATO space that may be recovered for reassignment from airlines 
with Lease and Operating Agreements, and (4) the reducuon, relocation, and/or 
reallocation of leased ATO space will not reduce any affected Lease and Use 
Agreement lessee's space below a minimum operating unit. 

Airport's Right of Rcacccss to EntiUement Space 

• "Enutlemeni Space" refers to (a) that portion of new ETB exclusive use space 
which is approximately the size of an airline's existing exclusive use space in 
the CTB under a Lease and Use Agreement, except that \TP clubrooms are 
enUrely enutlement space, whether they are larger than CTB VIP areas or not. 

• The Airport may recover Entitlement Space through Right of Reaccess only 
when the relevant lessee's available international seats have decreased by more 
than 50 percent in a 12-month period versus the benchmark vcar of FY 1999- 
2000. 

• The Airport may reaccess square footage in each exclusive use space category 
up to the percentage reduction, subject to minimum operating requirements. 



SAJJ WANCISCO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT . PC BOX KB7 ■ SAN FRANCISCO CAUFORNIA 9412B ■ TELEPHONE (650' 79*5000- FAX (650' 794-50C5 

14 



A DEPARTMENT 0: AV!AT:ON KAKAGEMEN1 [KlDJiO. b r, J 1U:M 8. IU:UZ •'•- Moi /1S1(JS r c 

_ Attachment III 
Pa g e 2 Pa?e 2 of 2 



• All VIP ciubroom space held by the eight airlines is designated as Entitlement 
Space because of the cost of constructing VIP clubrooms. Such space requires 
180 days notice to recover. All other Entitlement Space requires 90 days notice 
to recover. 

D. Procedures for Non-Entitlement Space 

• "Non-Enutiement Space" refers to all exclusive use space that is not 
"Entitlement Space". 

• To reduce or relocate Non-Entitlement Space, the Airport shall develop and 
present a plan and accompanying rationale to SFOTEC and the impacted 
airline(s). Airlines have a 30 day period 

• At the end of the 30 day comment period, the Airport shall deliver a notice to 
the airline(s) required to reduce or relocate space in accordance with the plan, 
noting that the plan may have been modified during the review process. 

• Non-Entitlement Space requires 90 days notice to recover. 

E. Buyout Provisions 

• When pursuant to these provisions, reduction or relocation of both Entitlement 
and Non -Entitlement Space is subject to buyout by the Airport of the value of 
the improvements amortized on a straight-line basis over the remaining term of 
die Lease and Use Agreement. If, however, exclusive use space is voluntarily 
surrendered by an airline, then the Airport is not obligated to offer buyout 
compensation. 



15 



' 






U 



I SI 

b. c/5! 



___-__- 



------ j u u I 



_ _ J u u u < < 



w<<< „<<<<_ 



. - - 



<<o<uu<<<<c 



___;_- 



_ uuu<<< u 



- 5 .2 L "! — z. 



- £ " ^ 
oo £ E F, 



bd bb jo a — 



= UJ g _ = S 



c =: = > 



— ^ ct 



CO .5 tu H-<J U - c 



& £jU :=£ 5 



^ 5 | | 1 1 ^ H I 
IS 8 1" § H 1 1 1 

D. CD ^ ^ K t. 2 



h > u c 5 r 7 

- ■ =- * '- ■ c I 






16 






Attachment V 
Page I or 2 



AIRPORT COMMISSION 

SAN FRANCISCO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT 

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 



INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM 



TO: Alan Gibson DATE: October 6, 1999 

FROM: ^T)Dorothy Schimke, Senior Property Manager 

y Department of Aviation Management 



SFO Terminal Equipment Company. LLC 



The airlines that will operate at the new International Terminal Building (I IB) are forming a 
limited liability company, SFO Terminal Equipment Company, LLC (SFOTECj. The purpose of 
this company is to operate and maintain certain equipment and joint use space in the 11 B and to 
schedule the usage of such joint use equipment and space among airline members and non- 
member users. 



(1) Operation and Maintenance of Equipment 

Maintenance of certain operating equipment and systems owned by the Airport will be the 
responsibility of SFOTEC. This equipment includes but is not limited to passenger loading 
bridges, the baggage system, the preconditioned air system, the 400 Hz ground power system, 
flight and baggage information display systems and common use telephones at gale podiums and 
ticket counters. 



(2) Gate and Ticket Counter Scheduling 

Gate scheduling: The scheduling of the new ITB's 24 joint use gates will be managed by 
SFOTEC, subject to Airport approval, to maximize the efficient use of those gates. 
Determination of gate usage policy and final resolution of conflicts will rest solely with the 
Airport Director. 

Ticket counter assignment and management: The assignment of the new ITB's 16S joint use 
ticket counters will be managed by SFOTEC, subject to Airport approval, in accordance with 
Ticket Counter Management Protocols designed to maximize the efficient use of those ticket 
counters. Determinauon of ticket counter usage policy and final resolution of conflicts will rest 
solely with the Airport Director. 



17 



•:;. jEPA?"y.iK: : : av:a: re: - - 

AJan Gibson 



October 6, 1999 Paee 2 of 2 

Pa°e2 



(3) Management Ser\-ices 

Tower operations: The ground movement of aircraft into and out of the new ITB, and within 
non-movement zones designated by the Airport, will be managed by SFOTEC. 

Cleaning and Maintenance: SFOTEC will also manage janitona] services for non-public joint 
use areas, and ramp sweeping. 

Accounting: SFOTEC will be responsible for allocating costs and dismbuung billings among 
the airline members and non-member users. 



(4) Coordination and Over sight 

An Oversight Committee, chaired by the .Airport and including both airline and Airport 
representation, will be responsible for setting SFOTEC's missions, addressing issues of mutual 
concern to the Airport and the airlines, and reviewing SFOTEC's performance 



18 



AV I AT I ON MANAGEMENT TKUllfl. 7' 99 7 : 00/ST. 7:00/NC. 436:7192!6 ? 2 



Attachment VI 
?ase 1 cf 2 



AIRPORT COMMISSION 

SAN FRANCISCO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT 
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 

MEMORANDUM 



TO: Alan Gibson DATE: October 6, 1999 

FROM: Dorothy Schirnke 

Airport Rates and Charges 

Background 

In 1979 a number of airlines filed suit to litigate certain complaints against the City, 
including an allegation that Airport revenues were being unlawfully diverted to the City's 
General Fund. (Federal law prohibits the expenditure of airport revenues for non-airport 
purposes.) In early 1980 the City and the airlines that were parties to the suit entered into 
settlement negotiations that resulted in a detailed Settlement Agreement and an Airime- 
Airport Lease and Use Agreement ("the LU"). Provisions for a substantial restructuring 
of the financial operation of the .Airport, including the methodology for calculating 
Airport Rates and Charges, were incorporated into the LU as part of the Settlement 
Agreement. 

Calculation of Rates and Charges 

In general, the airlines are obligated to pay terminal building rental rates and landing fees 
in amounts that, when included with all other Airport revenues, will be sufficient to cover 
all annual Airport costs. Rates are adjusted annually. Terminal rate adjustments are 
based on the average cost per square foot of providing, maintaining and operating the 
terminal building areas. 

A simplified outline of the methodology for calculating Airport terminal rents is as 
follows: 

1. Expense Forecasting. Airport forecasts its expenses, including both operating and 
capital expenses, for the upcoming fiscal year. 

2. Revenue Forecasting. Airport forecasts its non-airline terminal revenues tor the 
upcoming fiscal year. 

• Concession revenues 

• Rents from non-airline tenants 

• Other revenues (e.g., interest on unexpended capital funds) 



19 



iOM £?1A DEPARTMENT Or AVIATION SiANAG£MIN T T [THUJ *. C 7' 99 '. ! "- \ 

A::achr:er.: ^ 
Paee 1 cf 2 

Alan Gibson 
October 6. 1999 
Pa»e2 



3. Annual Service Payment. 15% of Concession revenues goes to City's general rjnd 
as compensation lor indirect services to the Airport. 

4. Calculation. 

• Non-airline revenues (net of Annual Service Payment) arc set off against 
projected expenses. 

• Remainder (expenses that are not covered by non-airline revenues) is divided by 
the total square feet of terminal space rented by airlines to determine nverage rent 
per square foot, which is then apportioned into five rate categories. 

• The higher the number of square feet rented to airlines, the lower the effective 
rental rate required to recover the terminal costs. 



20 



: f}~Vlr 



ay: a:: ox ^akagzmex: 



c- 



:47/KO. 436 



Airport 

Commissi do 
City and County 
of San Francisco 

Willie L Brown, Jr 
Meyo' 

Henry £ Burman 
President 

LarrvManola 
Vice President 

Michael £ Strunjlty 

Lindc S CrByton 

Caryl Ito 

JOHN L MARTIN 
Airport Director 




Attachment VII 



San Francisco International Airport 



GATEWAY TO THE PACIFIC 

JOINT USE FORMULA FOR THE NEW ITB 



The total charges for each room comprising joint use space shall be divided among the 
airlines using the new ITB according to the following formula: 

• Twenty percent of each joint space shall be divided equally among all airlines using 
that joint use space. Since Alaska Airlines will use only 53.4 percent of the joint 
use spaces, it will pay l/26 m of the 20 percent payment for those spaces. For all 
other joint use spaces, the remaining 25 airlines will pay 1/25 each. These 
proportions will change as individual airlines start or cease international flight 
operations at the new ITB. 

• Eighty percent shall be divided as follows. Each airline using the joint use space 
pays that proportion which the number of its passengers enplaning and/or deplaning 
at the new ITB bears to the total number of passengers enplaning and/or deplaning 
at the new ITB. The proportions for each type of joint use space are calculated on 
the following bases: 



Category 


Tvpe of Space 


Tvpe of Passenger 


I 


Ticket counter/gate 
holdroom 


new ITB enplaned passengers 


n 


Baggage claim /Federal 
Inspection Service 


new ITB deplaned passengers 


n 


Other 3 rd floor and 
above, and l sl floor 
passenger access 


new lib total enplaned and 
deplaned passengers 


m 


Other enclosed, 2°° and 
below 


new ITB total enplaned and 
deplaned passengers 


TV 


Inbound baggage 
handling 


new 1TB deplaned passengers 


IV 


Outbound baggage 
handling 


new ITB enplaned passengers 


V 


Other unenclosed 


new ITB total enplaned and 
deplaned passengers 



• If for any reason the number of passengers enplaning and/or deplaning at the new 
ITB in the prior fiscal year tor any of the airlines using the joint use space 
constitute an inappropriate basis for forecasting that airline's passenger volume for 
the year in which the charges are levied, the City can make appropriate adjustments 
in order to equitably apportion the total costs among all of the airlines using such 
joint use space. 

SAN FRANCISCO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT . P0 BOX 808? • SAN FRANCISCO CALIFORNIA M1Z8 • TELEPHONE (6MI 7M»M • FAX IBM) 794-5DTJB 



21 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

October 20, 1999 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

Item 2 - File 99-1853 

Note: This item was continued by the Finance and Labor Committee at its meeting 
of October 13, 1999. 



Department: 
Item: 



Location: 
Purpose of Leases: 



Airport Commission 

Resolution approving the terms of new Lease and 
Operating Agreements between the City and 18 airlines 
to allow these airlines to relocate their international flight 
operations to the new International Terminal Building at 
the San Francisco International Airport. 

New International Terminal Building (ITB) at the Airport 

The proposed new Lease and Operating Agreements with 
the 18 airlines listed below would permit the Airport to: 

(a) relocate the 18 airlines' international flight operations 
to the new ITB from the current International 
Terminal, which will then be converted for domestic 
flights. The current International Terminal is referred 
to in this report as the Central Terminal Building 
(CTB); 

(b) change certain types of airline rental space from 
exclusive use to joint use; 

(c) employ procedures for reducing, relocating, and/or 
reallocating exclusive use space in certain 
circumstances; and 

(d) terminate a lease if an airline voluntarily ceases its 
international flight operations at the Airport, 
contingent on Board of Supervisors approval of such 
lease terminations. 



Lessor: 



City and County of San Francisco 
Airport Commission. 



by and through the 






Lessees: 



Aeroflot Russian International Airlines 

Air China 

Air France 

Alitalia Airlines 

Asiana Airlines 

All Nippon Airways 

British Airways, PLC 

Cathay Pacific Airways, LTD. 

China Eastern Airlines 

EVA Airways 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



22 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

October 20, 1999 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

Finnan- 
Korean Air 

KLM Royal Dutch Airlines 
Lineas Areas Costarricenses (LACSA), S.A. 
Lufthansa German Airlines 
Ryan International Airlines 
Swissair Transport Co. LTD 
\ 'irgin Atlantic Airways 

Square Footage: There arc two sets of space being leased in the new ITB: 

(1) 676,260 square feet of joint use space, and (2) 55,126 
square feet of exclusive use space. 

(1) Joint use space in the new ITB: According to Ms. 
Dorothy Schimke of the Airport, "joint use space" is 
airline rental space in a facility owned by the Airport 
which is leased to more than one airline for the shared 
use of all the airlines leasing that space. In the new ITB. 
26 airlines will collectively lease 676.260 square feet of 
joint use space. These 26 airlines comprise (a) the 18 
airlines Listed above, and (b) eight other airlines which 
operate under Lease and Use Agreements effective July 1. 
1981. The Airport's proposal to modify its existing Lease 
and Use Agreements with those eight other airlines is the 
subject of a separate resolution (see Item 8, File 99-1852, 
of this report to the Finance and Labor Committee). 

The 26 airlines will pay rent for this 676.260 square feet 
of joint use space in accordance with Airport rates and 
charges, as set out in the Lease and Operating 
Agreements. This joint use space is divided into the 
rental categories shown in Attachment I, provided by the 
Airport. 

Attachment I shows (a) an estimated 548.691 square foot, 
or approximately 430 percent, increase in the joint use 
space to be leased by the 26 airlines, from the current 
127.569 square feet of joint use space in the CTB to the 
676,260 square feet of joint use space in the new ITB. and 
(b) an estimated S18.946.802. or approximately 178 
percent, increase in the rent to be paid by those 26 
airlines, from an estimated $10,627,232 in FY 1999-2000 
to an estimated $29,574,034 in FY 2000-2001. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

23 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

October 20, 1999 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

(2) Exclusive use space in the new ITB: Exclusive 
use space in the new ITB can consist of (a) airline ticket, 
baggage service, ramp operations, and administrative 
offices, (b) VIP clubrooms, and/or (c) other support space. 
The 18 airlines will lease the amounts of exclusive use 
space in the new ITB as set forth in Attachment II, 
provided by the Airport. Attachment II shows (a) an 
estimated 33,842 square foot, or approximately 159 
percent, increase in the exclusive use space to be rented 
by the 18 airlines, from the current 21,284 square feet of 
exclusive use space in the CTB to the 55,126 square feet 
of exclusive use space in the new ITB, and (b) an 
estimated $1,030,836, or approximately 56 percent, 
increase in the rent to be paid by those 18 airlines for 
their exclusive use space, from an estimated $1,851,310 in 
FY 1999-2000 to an estimated $2,882,146 in FY 2000- 
2001. 

Annual Rental 

Revenue: The Airport estimates that it will realize $37,161,803 in 

airline lease revenue in FY 2000-2001 from the new ITB's 
total airline rental space. Of this amount, the Airport will 
realize an estimated $29,574,034, or approximately 79.6 
percent, from the 676,260 square feet of joint use space 
leased to all 26 airlines with international flight 
operations, as shown in Attachment I. Of the estimated 
balance of $7,587,769, or approximately 20.4 percent, 
which the Airport estimates that it will collect from rental 
of exclusive use space, an estimated $2,882,146 will be 
paid by the 18 airlines with Lease and Operating 
Agreements (as shown in Attachment II), and an 
estimated $4,705,623 will be paid by the eight airlines 
with Lease and Use Agreements (as shown in Attachment 
II of Item 8, File 99-1852, in this report to the Finance 
and Labor Committee). 

The table below compares the estimated FY 2000-2001 
airline lease revenues from the new ITB with the 
estimated airline lease revenues from the CTB in FY 
1999-2000. Overall, the Airport anticipates a 

$19,082,405, or 106 percent, increase in airline lease 
revenues from the 26 airlines which have international 
flight operations at the Airport. (This table covers Items 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

24 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

October 20, 1999 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



8 and 9, Files 99-1852 and 99-1853, of this report to the 
Finance and Labor Committee.) 





CTB 

Square 

Feet 


Estimated 

ITB 

Square 

Feet 


Estimated *• 
Difference in 

Square Feet 


Estimated 
FY 1999- 

2000 Lease 
Revenue 


Estimated 
FY 2000- 

2001 Lease 
Revenue 


Estimated 
Difference in 
Lease 
Revenue 


Joint Use Space 


127.569 






4300% 


$10,627,232 


74.034 


178% 


Lease & Use 
Agreement 
Exclusive Use 
Space 


69.546 


93.594 




35% 


5.600,856 


4.705.623 


(16%) 


Lease & 
Opera tins 
Agreement 
Exclusive Use 
Space 

TOTAL 


21.284 


55,126 




159% 
278*. 


1,851.310 


2.882.146 


56% 
106% 


218,399 


BMjMfl 


$18,079,398 


S3 7. 16 1.803 



Term of Lease 
and Operating 
Agreements: 



Approval of both Files 99-1852 and 99-1853 will result in 
total estimated airline lease revenues for the Airport of 
$37,161,803 from the new ITB in FY 2000-2001. This 
represents an estimated increase of $19,082,405 over the 
estimated airline lease revenues for the Airport of 
$18,079,398 from the CTB in FY* 1999-2000. This 
increase comprises the estimated additional (a) 
$18,946,802 for joint use space in the new ITB. and (b) 
$1,030,836 for Lease and Operating Agreement airlines' 
exclusive use space in the new ITB. offset by (c) a 
decrease of $895,233 in the revenues from Lease and Use 
Agreement airlines' exclusive use space in the new ITB 
(as described in Item 8. File 99-1852. of this report to the 
Finance and Labor Committee). 



Each of the proposed Lease and Operating Agreements 
will take effect upon full execution by the parties and 
final approval by the Board of Supervisors. All IS Lease 
and Operating Agreements terminate on June 30. 2011, 
which is coterminous with the eight Lease and Use 
Agreements which are the subject of Item 8. File 99-1852. 
of this report to the Finance and Labor Committee. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



25 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

October 20, 1999 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



Right of Renewal: 



None. 



Maintenance and 
Operations: 



The respective responsibilities of the City and the 18 
airlines for maintenance and operations are contained in 
Attachment IV, provided by the Airport. Ms. Schimke 
states that the Airport's airline rental space rates are 
designed to cover all of the Airport's maintenance and 
operations overhead costs which are not covered by 
revenue from the Airport's concessions or other non- 
airline revenues. 



Comments: 



1. As part of the Airport's Master Plan Expansion 
Program, the Airport is constructing a new ITB which is 
scheduled for completion in May of 2000. All 
international flight operations currently conducted by the 
26 airlines in the CTB, including those of the 18 airlines 
under this subject resolution, will be relocated to the new 
ITB, allowing the CTB to be used as a third domestic 
terminal, according to Mr. Gary Franzella of the Airport. 
Mr. Franzella states that the reassignment of the CTB as 
a third terminal for domestic flight operations and the 
opening of the new ITB as a fourth terminal will enable 
the Airport to increase the total number of passengers the 
Airport can handle from an estimated 40 million in 1999, 
to an estimated 51 million in 2006, an increase of 27.5 
percent. 

2. Of the 26 airlines which will relocate their 
international flight operations to the new ITB, 18 airlines, 
which are the subject of this resolution, are expected to 
sign new Lease and Operating Agreements with the City. 
According to Ms. Schimke, none of the 18 subject airlines 
currently have leases equivalent to the Lease and 
Operating Agreements proposed by this resolution. 
Whereas most airlines that were tenants of the Airport in 
1981 signed Lease and Use Agreements with the Airport, 
thereby controlling most of the available exclusive use 
airline rental space, airlines that became tenants 
subsequently were obliged to make other arrangements. 
As a result, the 18 subject airlines either (a) obtained 
month-to-month permits for the small amounts of space 
not originally leased under Lease and Use Agreement, or 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



26 



Memo to Finance and Labor Commit tee 

October 20, 1999 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



for space which has subsequently been surrendered by 
airlines with Lease and Use Agreements, (b) subleased 
from Lease and Use Agreement airlines, or (c) entered 
into "handling agreements" pursuant to alliances, code- 
shares, or similar marketing or ground handling 
agreements, with airlines which have space under either 
Lease and Use Agreements or space permits. Ms. 
Schimke states that such subleases, handling agreements, 
or space permits were not subject to Board of Supervisors 
approval because only leases m excess often years and/or 
$1,000,000 in value are subject to Board of Supervisors 
approval. 

According to Ms. Schimke, under the proposed resolution, 
the new Lease and Operating Agreements would benefit 
the Airport because: (a) they put the Airport into a direct 
relationship with the airlines, rather than an indirect 
relationship as is currently the case with airlines that 
have subleases or handling agreements; (b) they provide 
the Airport with direct control over space allocation, both 
in the initial assignment of space and through the 
reallocation procedures described in Attachment III: and 
(c) they assure the Airport of the airlines' longterm 
commitment to the Airport. Ms. Schimke also states that 
the proposed Lease and Operating Agreements would 
benefit the 18 airlines as follows: (a) they give the 
airlines a term of years, which ends June 30, 2011, over 
which to amortize their tenant improvements: and (b) 
they provide parity among airlines at the Airport by, for 
example, giving the airlines voting rights on airline 
organizations advisory to the Airport. 

If any of the 18 airlines choose not to sign their proposed 
Lease and Operating Agreements, they will need to sign a 
month-to-month space permit instead. The same rates 
and charges will apply whether airlines choose to sign 
their Lease and Operating Agreements, or month-to- 
month space permits. Such monthly space permits would 
not be subject to Board of Supervisors approval unless 
they exceeded $1,000,000 in value. 

3. Of the 26 airlines which will relocate their 
international flight operations to the new ITB. eight 
airlines are the subject of Item 8, File 99-1852, of this 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

27 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

October 20, 1999 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



report to the Finance and Labor Committee. According to 
Ms. Schimke, the 18 proposed Lease and Operating 
Agreements will be similar to the Lease and Use 
Agreements, as modified, for the eight airlines under File 
99-1852, except they will not have the Entitlement Space 
provisions of Lease and Use Agreements. 

4. Under the proposed resolution, the Airport would be 
authorized to modify the allocation of exclusive use space 
in the new ITB without further approval from the Board 
of Supervisors, as long as the modifications are consistent 
with the provisions contained in Attachment III. All 
other modifications to airlines' allocations of exclusive use 
space would require Board of Supervisors approval. 

5. Under the proposed resolution, the Airport could 
terminate an airline's lease if that airline voluntarily 
ceased international flight operations at the Airport, 
subject to Board of Supervisors approval of that lease 
termination. 

6. Under the existing CBT space allocations, joint use 
space includes only gate hold-rooms, baggage handling 
and baggage claim areas, and Federal Inspection Service 
areas. The joint use space approach is being expanded in 
the new ITB. According to Mr. Franzella, all of the new 
ITB's 168 ticket counters will be designated as joint use 
spaces, compared with only eight of the 111 ticket 
counters currently designated as joint use space in the 
CTB. The remaining 103 CTB ticket counters are 
exclusive use spaces under the existing Lease and Use 
Agreements. Mr. Franzella also states that all 24 gate 
hold-rooms in the new ITB will be designated as joint use 
spaces, whereas in the CTB United Airlines has exclusive 
use space rights over five of the CTB's ten gate hold- 
rooms. 

7. As explained in Attachment V, provided by the 
Airport, scheduling of joint use space in the new ITB will 
be managed, under the Airport's oversight, by the airline 
consortium, SFO Terminal Equipment Company, LLC 
(SFOTEC), a company to be formed by the 26 airlines. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

28 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committ'* 

October 20, 1999 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



8. Execution copies of the proposed Lease and Operating 
Agreements were sent to the airlines on September 2, 
1999. Final approval is contingent on the Human Rights 
Commission's determination of each airline's compliance 
with, or exemption from, the requirements of San 
Francisco's Equal Benefits Ordinance. Ms. Schimke 
advises thai the 18 airlines are currently in various 
stages of obtaining certification of their compliance with, 
or exemption from, that ordinance's requirements, and 
that the Airport anticipates that all 18 will comply. 

9. According to Mr. Franzella, a phased occupancy of the 
subject space will permit all airlines which have exclusive 
use spaces to commence tenant improvements of those 
spaces no later than January 1. 2000. As previously 
noted, the new ITB is scheduled to open in May of 2000. 
While the lessees are not required to make a minimum 
investment per square foot in the tenant improvement 
construction of their exclusive use spaces, they are 
required to meet the requirements of the relevant 
construction codes. Construction of all exclusive use 
spaces for Lease and Operating Agreement airlines will 
be performed under a consolidated contract awarded by 
the Airport's Airline Liaison Office in order to minimize 
potential coordination problems. The exception will be 
the MP clubrooms being constructed by contractors 
individually hired by Air France, British Airways. EVA 
Aii-ways. Korean Air. Lufthansa German Airlines, and 
Virgin Atlantic Airways. Construction of all joint use 
space will be the responsibility of the Airport. 

9. The airlines' payment of rents for the new ITB space 
will commence on the date the new ITB is open and 
operational, as determined by the Airport Director. On 
that date, the airlines' rental payments for the CTB cease. 
The 18 airlines will be expected to surrender their space 
in the CTB immediately. 

10. All lessees will pay rent for their new ITB space in 
accordance with the Airport's rates and charges for airline 
rental space. These are determined annually by the 
Aii-port using the rates and charges methodology- 
prescribed in the Lease and Operating Agreements, and 
contained in Attachment VI, provided by the Airport. The 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



29 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

October 20, 1999 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

division between the airlines of the rent payable for the 
new ITB's joint use space will be determined on the basis 
of a "Joint Use Formula" as explained in Attachment VII, 
provided by the Airport. 

11. In summar}', the Airport estimates that approval of 
both Files 99-1852 and 99-1853 will result in total 
estimated airline lease revenues for the Airport of 
$37,161,803 from the new ITB in FY 2000-2001, an 
increase of $19,082,405 over the estimated airline lease 
revenues for the Airport of $18,079,398 from the CTB in 
FY 1999-2000. 

Recommendation: Approve the proposed resolution, contingent on the 18 

airlines' compliance with the City's Equal Benefits 
Ordinance. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

30 



Attachment I 



o 
o 

>■ 



_, 3 u « 

3 ■- = £ 



LU 



< 

O 

CO 

Z> 

c 
re 

o 

re 

o 



CD 

>■ 
u. 



o 
o 
o 

CN 

> 

LL 

o 

•D 

o 

TO 

E 

M 

* 
CD 



O 
o 
o 

CN 

C7) 
CT> 



CQ 

1-5 

o 




lO 

m 



O 
CM 



oq 

CN 



3 

CN 

CN 

05 



CO 

CO 

co" 



o 
CO 



3 



CO 



< 

2 



co 
SO 

s 

z. 



CD t- 



o 

00 



CD 
CN 



CO 
00 

°l 



00 



CD CO 

CN CO 

O CO 



co 

F3 



«- r^- 



*3- 
o 

CN 

CD* 
<J) 



o 


CO 


CN 


I-- 


CD 


o 


CO 


m 


CO 


ID 


V* 


O 



"3- 

co 



O £ 



DO 


u 


ro 


■ 




a 

CO 






— 

ro 

— 


— 


s 
n 

ro 




r~ 














m 


u 


tn 




* 




gg 


c 



r s = 



s= ■= ro 



— — w .- 



CO >- 3 0) 



U u. .£ n 



■ 


5 


■ 


■ 






a 


1 


z 


a 


■ 


— 


.-. 




CT; 


■ 


■ 
5 


■ 

in 

■ 


tt 


I 



fl 

si! 

3 •§ CN 

- e o 
o £ ™ 
9-S > 

-= «D li. 
** ® * 
= 83 : 

_ .c ro 
CD ^ 3 

«£E 

° X) ° 

» is 

™ tO <D 
® - W 
Q. <« -3 

o c _ 

- e c 
"& E o 

IE ® ~> 

"5 a 2 

= © = 
o co _ 

C D 3 

e -o ° 

~ C p 

— o ra 

— © 

Jos 

■» * = 

CO * CD 

10 S " 

CN 2f O 
• ^ — 



£ ffl ® -I 



^I 2 

•o ? C 

® ® c 

w © *~ 

co - * 

® - s 

>■ S, - 

> 2 >- 

I|l 

O i in 

O O — 



I S ic 2 a) 



to ro < 

8- E ® 

(B O = 

J — in 

03 

-i — tt 

o ^ u 

> -o 

<b 2 £> 

o ® F, 

c > o 

a> ° E 

<o "S ■ 

(B <0 0) 

• 5 31 

o. = < 



QJ -o 



o P- ^ "? 



-t <1> .= 



03 ra 



> .5 1 



31 



Attachment II 



co 

•_ 
o 
Q. 

o 

T5 

C 

re 

C/5 

eg 
a) 





Q3{ 
































© 


3 
































o 


O 
































o 


> 
































>- 

LL 


o 
OH 

o 

o 




< 


< 


cm -i 


<S5 


55 < 

CM -> 


< 


CM 


< 


vP 

-i co 


< 


LO 


CD < 


vP 

CO 


S5 

|N- 


.E 




z 


z 


co z 


Z op 


CM Z 


z 


CT! 


z 


Z CM 


z 


^r 


CT ^ 


o 


in 


"1 


c 
o 
















'CO 




CM 




00 


00 
CM 


CD 
CM 


m 


O 


o 
































o 


&= 
































c5 


b 
































>- 


































































LL 


c 
































C 


CT 
































o 
to 


co 

CD 

o 

s 

1— 

Q) 




< 


< 


^5 

IN. < 


^5 

< Lo 


^5 

<* ^ 

d z 

00 


< 


C 


< 


S5 

q < 


< 


©N 


< < 


q 


5? 
q 


re 
a 

£ 




z 


z 


CM 


z ^ 


z 


CM 
ro 
CD 


z 


o ^ 


z 


CO 

LO 


z z 


CM 

in 


aj 
m 


o 


i= 
































o 


b 


































CO 


Y- 


lo 


r- cd 


O CN 


T- CD 


m 


ro 


CT 


O CD 


CM 


-* 


r^ o 


o 


co 


^ 


ffl 


CD 


N. 


ct c-- 


00 CO 


t- CD 


CD 


T 


<zFt 


faO CM 


r~- 


CT 


■"3- CT 


00 


<tf 


o 


CO 


co 


CO Tt 


00 CD 


LO N- 


3 


CO 




OO 


T- 


CD 


h- oo 


r- 


T— 


o 


3 


00 


in 


m" t-" 


N-" t-" 


lO ■«-" 


T- " 


•^r 




CO 


CM 


CD 


in co 


r^- 


CN 


o 


Q 


in 


m 


N- in. 


CT t- 


00 CT 


^r 


ro 




CD 


N- 


O 


CM CD 


CD 


CO 


>- 

LL 





eo 


eo 


NWWv 


CD GO 


^^ 


oo 




T— 


oO 


OO 


v- feO 


oo 


CO 


eg 






V* 


c/> 60 




-Ft 




GO- 




&9- eo- 


G9- 


CN 




5 




























V* 


@) 


I- 






























T3 






























a> 






























4-> 

re 






























d 


00 


LO 


O CT) 


r*- co 


CT O 


T— 


LO 


O 


CD CM 


IN. 


r^- 


h- 00 


00 


CO 


E 


00 


CN 


t- in 


N- 00 


O CD 


CM 


CT 




T 


T 


o 


O Tt 


in 


CN 


'-^ 


a 




oo 


CN -tf 


h~ o 


O CT 


CO 


"* 




CN 


CO 


CO 


*t CM_ 


00_ 


▼T, 


v> 


co- 


T— 


^- 


LO t- 


<r- CN 


CM t- 




CO 




<T) 


T 


LO' 


CM t-" 


co" 


m" 


LU 































m 


* 


CD 






























I- 


a 






























DQ 


H 






























































co 


o 


o 


00 o 


O CM 


T- O 


00 


LO 


o 


CO O 


o 


o 


CO o 


CT) 


o 




w 


t& &. 


CM fe<> 


<y> in 


CT ea 


CO 


T 


09- 


•^- in 


feO 


^ 


oo y> 


CT) 


v" 








CO 


o 


00 


CNJ 


N. 




m oo 




CO 


o 


CT) 


CO 


(A 

0) 


3 






ao" 


CO 


ID 


in 


CO 




CD r- 




|N. 


r^ 






*j 


a 






T — 


r- 


T— 


T— 


oo 




oo in 




CD 


oo 


O 


m 


re 









T — 


^ — 


CO 


fcO- 


&> 




GO &> 




"t 


feO- 


v— 


CO 


oi 


rc 






fc* 


v* cy> 












40 




fe^ 


,_r 


o 


a 




























«5- 


o 


H 




























































© 






























>- 

LL 






























gd 


o 


o 


r-. o 


o o 


CM O 


T— 


LO 


CT 


O CO 


o 


CT 


00 o 


OO 


Tt 






o 


CO 


T— 


m 


|s. 




O CD 




CT 


o 


CT) 


CO 


d 






in 


IN. 


CN 


CM 


00 




*3- in 




^r 


CD 


q 


CN 


OQ 

1- 


CO 
"tC 






T— 


T— 


CT)" 












in 




T ~" 


CM 


O 


O 
















































CO 






CO 

CD 
























CD 






c 
























c 






































co 












co 










< 






< 

"re 


ro 










CD 


re 
5 co 

.b CD 
< = 


? ro 


< 

c 


"co 






Q 
5 -^ 




ro 


c 
o 

ro 

c 

CD 
I "03 

ro -^ 


< 

a 

c 
J5 






LU 

Z 


o 


ro 
c 


o 

c 
re re 


^ro 


■5 ro 


LU 

re 


< 


'ro 




ro 


CO 

c 
rc 


< 

c 


_1 
< 




_ 


o 

CD 


CJ 


ll ro 


Z re 

= CO 


c ro 


c 


< 

> 


c 
C 


2 2 

_l o 


CO 

o 

to 


JZ. 
3 


CCT 


1- 

o 




< 


1 < 


< 


< < 


< < 


CD O 


O 


LL' 


LL 


c^ ^ 


_i 


_J 


q: o5 


> 


1- 



O T3 



CU C3) 
CD CO 

5 -S 



32 



EMENT 



Alrpon 
Conmtuion 

Lity ana County 
Of San Francisco 

Willie L Blown, Jr 
Mayor 

Hflnry E Berman 
Praiident 

Larry Mauola 
Vice President 

Michaol S Struniky 

Unda S Crayton 

Caryl Ito 

JOHN L MARTIN 
Airport Director 



WEI 10. 6' 9 

Attachment III 



Page 1 of 2 




San Francisco I ntern ational Airport 

GATEWAY TO TWt PACIFIC 

REDUCTION. RELOCATQN, AND/OR REALLOCATION 
OF EXCLUSIVE USE SPACE 



When required by a significant shift in market share or to accommodate a new 
airline, the Airport can reduce, relocate, and/or reallocate exclusive use space in 
accordance with die procedures described below. 

Airline Ticket Office (ATO) Procedures 

• ATOs arc the ticket counter support offices located on Floors 3 and 3M of the 
new JTB. 

• ATO space may be reduced, relocated, and/or reallocated in conjunction with 
reallocation of ticket counter preferential use assignments, which are decided 
by SFOTEC, with Airport oversight, based on flight activity and new ITB 
Ticket Counter Management Protocols. 

• A key objective of the new ITB Ticket Counter Management Protocols is to 
provide each airline with a regular check-in location, with the maximum 
number of positions desired (if available). 

• Reduction, relocation, and/or reallocation of ATO space held by airline:, under 
Lease and Use Agreements will occur only after the City has determined that 
(1) there is no unassigned ATO space on Floors 3 or 3M, (2) there is no ATO 
space that may be recovered for reassignment from airlines with space permits, 
and (3) the reduction, relocation, and/or reallocauon of leased ATO space will 
not reduce any affected Lease and Use Agreement lessee's space below a 
minimum operating unit. 

Procedures for Non-Entitlement Space 

• "Non-Entitlement Space" refers to all Exclusive use space with a Lease & 
Operation Agreement that is not "ATO Space". 

• To reduce or relocate Non-Entitlement Space, the Airport shall develop and 
present a plan and accompanying rationale to SFOTEC and the impacted 
airbne(s). Airlines have a 30 day period 

• At the end of the 30 day comment period, the Airport shall deliver a notice to 
the airline(s) required to reduce or relocate space in accordance with the plan, 
noting that the plan may have been modified during the review process. 

• Non-Enntlemem Space requires 90 days notice to recover 



SAN FRANCISCO INTERNAnONAL AIRPORT -PC BOX 8D97 . SAN FRANCISCO CALIFORNIA 94128 . TELEPHONE (SSd 794-WOO • FAX [6M> 794-SKB 



33 



)M SFIA DEPARTMENT OF AVIATION ^NAGZMINT [WED) 10. 6' 99 10 : 04/ST. 10: 02/NO. 4861718188 P 3 

Page 2 Attachment III 

Page 2 of 2 



D. Buyout Provisions 

• When pursuant to these provisions, reduction or relocation of both Entitlement 
and Non-Entitlement Space is subject to buyout by the Airport of the value of 
the improvements amortized on a straight-line basis over the remaining term of 
the Lease and Use Agreement. If, however, exclusive use space is voluntarily 
surrendered by an airline, then the Airport is not obligated to offer buyout 
compensation. 



» 



Attachment IV 



iuuuu 



- _ o u u u CJ ' — . 



uuuuuuuuuu 



uouuuuuuuu 



U U U U O U I ■ I u 



uuuuuu<< i *~ u 



U U U U CJ '_ : >uu 



if 

II 

V < 



"c S 



III 

_ M 21 



u<<<u<<<<^ 



<<u<uu<<<<u 



< I * 



5 -= 



UUU IOOUUUU 



O i O O U '^ < < < » w 



M S^5;^^2-g.= 



t = =-?? 



~ lie 
"Co 

alcr and Sl 


c o 


3 

a 




4J S 


-^ 


Carpel 

milling am 

lilding - S 

- Ii 


S i> 

> =0 



35 "" 









B = - 3 1 SI ~ 

■= - ■ '— — •£ ^ 

— 3 "5 v ■» — — 

- "5 = — - 5 ?• 

; > ~ - 3 5 "= 



~~ :T 5 ■ t - — 



FROM SFIA DEPARTMENT OF AVIATION MANAGEMENT (WED) 10. 6' 99 1 : 05/ST. 1 : 02/NO. 4361 718133 F 9 

Attachment V 



Page 1 ot T 

AIRPORT COMMISSION 

SAN FRANCISCO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT 

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 



INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM 



TO: Alan Gibson DATE: October 6, 1999 

FROM: CmDorothy Schimke, Senior Property Manager 

y Department of Aviation Management 



SFO Terminal Equipment Company, LLC 



The airlines that will operate at the new International Terminal Building (TIB) are forming a 
limited liability company, SFO Terminal Equipment Company, LLC (SFOTEC). The purpose of 
this company is to operate and maintain certain equipment and joint use space in the ITB and to 
schedule the usage of such joint use equipment and space among airline members and non- 
member users. 



(1) Operation and Maintenance of Equipment 

Maintenance of certain operating equipment and systems owned by the Airport will be the 
responsibility of SFOTEC. This equipment includes but is not limited to passenger loading 
bridges, the baggage system, the preconditioned air system, the 400 Hz ground power system, 
flight and baggage information display systems and common use telephones at gate podiums and 
ticket counters. 



(2) Gate and Ticket Counter Scheduling 

Gate scheduling: The scheduling of the new ITB's 24 joint use gates will be managed by 
SFOTEC, subject to Airport approval, to maximize the efficient use of those gates. 
Determination of gate usage policy and final resolution of conflicts will rest solely with the 
Airport Director. 

Ticket counter assignment and management: The assignment of the new ITB's 168 joint use 
ticket counters will be managed by SFOTEC, subject to Airport approval, in accordance with 
Ticket Counter Management Protocols designed to maximize the efficient use of those ticket 
counters. Determination of ticket counter usage policy and final resolution of conflicts will rest 
solely with the Airport Director. 



36 



SFIA DEPARTMENT OF AVIATION MANAGEMENT (WED) 10. 6' 99 10 P 10 

Alan Gibson Attachment V 

October 6. 1999 Pase 2 of 2 

Page 2 



(3) Management Services 

Tower operations: The ground movement of aircraft into and out of the new ITB, and within 
non-movement zones designated by the Airport, will be managed by SFOTEC. 

Cleaning and Maintenance: SFOTEC will also manage janitorial services for non-public joint 
use areas, and ramp sweeping. 

Accounting: SFOTEC will be responsible for allocating costs and distributing billings among 
the airline members and non-member users. 



(4) Coordination and Ove rsight 

An Oversight Committee, chaired by the Airport and including both airline and Airport 
representation, will be responsible for setting SFOTEC's missions, addressing issues of mutual 
concern to the Airport and the airlines, and reviewing SFOTEC's performance. 



37 



M SFIA DEPARTMENT OF AVIATION MANAGEMENT THUJ10. 7' 99 7:00/37. 7 : 00-7CO. 4S6:~:S2:6 P 2 

Attachment VI 
Page 1 of 2 

AIRPORT COMMISSION 

SAN FRANCISCO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT 
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 

MEMORANDUM 



TO: Alan Gibson DATE: October 6, 1999 

FROM: Dorothy Schimke 

Airport Rates and Charges 

Background 

In 1979 a number of airlines filed suil to litigate certain complaints against the City, 
including an allegation that Airport revenues were being unlawfully diverted to the City's 
General Fund. (Federal law prohibits the expenditure of airport revenues for non-airport 
purposes.) In early 1980 the City and the airlines that were parties to the suit entered into 
settlement negotiations that resulted in a detailed Settlement Agreement and an Airline- 
Airport Lease and Use Agreement ("the LU 1 ')- Provisions for a substantial restructuring 
of the financial operation of the Airport, including the methodology for calculating 
Airport Rates and Charges, were incorporated into the LU as part of the Settlement 
Agreement. 

Calculation of Rates and Charges 

In general, the airlines are obligated to pay terminal building rental rates and landing fees 
in amounts that, when included with all other Airport revenues, will be sufficient to cover 
all annual Airport costs. Rates are adjusted annually. Terminal rate adjustments are 
based on the average cost per square foot of providing, maintaining and operating the 
terminal building areas. 

A simplified outline of the methodology' for calculating Airport terminal rents is as 
follows: 

1. Expense Forecasting. Airport forecasts its expenses, including both operating and 
capital expenses, for the upcoming fiscal year. 

2. Revenue Forecasting. Airport forecasts its non-airline terminal revenues for the 
upcoming fiscal year. 

• Concession revenues 

• Rents from non-airline tenants 

• Other revenues (e.g., interest on unexpended capital funds) 



38 



EMENT 7* 99 . ■ : '; 

Attachment VI 
Page 2 of 2 

Alan Gibson 
October 6. 1999 
Page 2 



Annual Service Payment. 15% of Concession revenues goes to City's general fund 

as compensation for indirect services to the Airport. 

Calculation. 

• Non-airline revenues (net of Annual Service Payment) are set off against 
projected expenses. 

• Remainder (expenses that are not covered by non airline revenues) is divided by 
the total square feet of terminal space rented by airlines to determine average rent 
per square foot, which is then apportioned into five rate categories. 

• The higher the number of square feet rented to airlines, the lower the effective 
rental rate required to recover the terminal costs. 



39 



•ROM SrIA DEPARTMENT 0? AVIATION MANAGEMENT (TUE)IO. 5' 99 16:43/ST. 1 6 : 47/NO. 4S51718153 P 2 



Airport 

Commissi do 
City and County 
of San Francisco 

Willie L Brown, Jr 
Mayor 

Henry E Barman 
President 

LarrvMaswa 
Vice President 

Michael S Svunjlcy 

Unce S. Crayun 

Caryl lis 

JOHN L MARTIN 
Airport Oireaor 




Attachment VII 



San Francisco International Airport 



GATEWAY TO THE PACIFIC 

JOINT USE FORMULA FOR THE NEW ITB 



The total charges for each room comprising joint use space shall be divided among the 
airlines using the new ITB according to the following formula: 

• Twenty percent of each joint space shall be divided equally among all airlines using 
that joint use space. Since Alaska Airlines will use only 53.4 percent of the joint 
use spaces, it will pay l/26 a of the 20 percent payment for those spaces. For all 
other joint use spaces, the remaining 25 airlines will pay ItlS^ each. These 
proportions will change as individual airlines start or cease international flight 
operations at the new ITB. 

• Eighty percent shall be divided as follows. Each airline using the joint use space 
pays that proportion which the number of its passengers enplaning and/or deplaning 
at the new ITB bears to the total number of passengers enplaning and/or deplaning 
at the new ITB. The proportions for each type of joint use space are calculated on 
the following bases: 



Category 


Type of Space 


Tvpe of Passenger 


I 


Ticket counter/gate 
holdroom 


new ITB enplaned passengers 


n 


Baggage claim /Federal 
Inspection Service 


new ITB deplaned passengers 


n 


Other 3 rt floor and 
above, and 1 st floor 
Dassenger access 


new ITB total enplaned and 
deplaned passengers 


m 


Other enclosed, 2 aa and 
below 


new ITB total enplaned and 
deplaned passengers 


TV 


Inbound baggage 
handling 


new ITB deplaned passengers 


rv 


Outbound baggage 
handling 


new ITB enplaned passengers 


v 


Other unenclosed 


new ITB total enplaned and 
deplaned passengers 



• If for any reason the number of passengers enplaning and/or deplaning at the new 
1TB in the prior fiscal year for any of the airlines using the joint use space 
constitute an inappropriate basis for forecasting that airline's passenger volume for 
the year in which the charges are levied, the City can make appropriate adjustments 
in order to equitably apportion the total costs among all of the airlines using such 
joint use space. 

SAN PHANCISCO INTERNATIONAL AIBPORT . P0 BOX 80S? • SAN FRANCISCO CALJFORNIA Ml 28 ■ TELEPHONE 1650) 794-M00 • FAX IBSOI 79*-500S 



40 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

October 20, 1999 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

Items 3 and 4 - Files 99-1861 and 99-1862 

Department: Department of Human Services (DHS) 

Items: Item 3, File 99-1861: Supplemental appropriation in the 

amount of $12,690,062 of State and Federal revenues to: (1) 
fund aid payments for the Cash Assistance Program for 
Immigrants (CAPI); (2) augment Child Welfare Services; (3) 
expand outreach and eligibility determination services in the 
Food Stamp Program; (4) create 19.5 new limited tenure 
FTEs at the Department of Human Services; and (5) adjust 
revenue appropriations. 

Item 4, File 99-1862: Ordinance amending the FY 1999- 
2000 Annual Salary Ordinance to reflect the creation of 19.5 
FTE new limited tenure positions in DHS. 



Amount: 
Source of Funds: 



$12,690,062 

New State and Federal revenues $12,893,426 
Adjustments to previously appropriated State 

and Federal Revenues (203.364) 

Total $12,690,062 



Attachment I, provided by DHS, details the new revenue 
sources and each revenue adjustment. 

Description: The Department of Human Services (DHS) is requesting the 

subject supplemental appropriation (File 99-1861), funded by 
new State and Federal revenues in the amount of 
$12,690,062 for the following three program areas: 

Cash Assistance Program for Immigrants (CAPI) $11,799,180 
Child Welfare Services 181,461 

Food Stamp Program 709.421 

$12,690,062 

Under the proposed supplemental appropriation, 
$11,799,180 would fund aid payments through the Cash 
Assistance Program for Immigrants (CAPI). CAPI is a State 
program that provides cash benefits to immigrants. San 
Mateo County had performed the administration and benefit 
issuance functions for San Francisco (in addition to other 
counties) until October 1, 1999, when San Mateo County 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



41 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

October 20, 1999 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



determined that it was no longer able to support San 
Francisco's caseload. The requested funds are the same level 
of cash assistance funds which were previously earmarked 
for San Francisco CAPI recipients but had been allocated to 
San Mateo County on the City's behalf to provide for 
immigrants residing in San Francisco. Mr. Dan Kim of DHS 
advises that the $11,799,180 would be for cash assistance 
payments only since new positions and State funding for 
administering the CAPI program was included and 
previously approved by the Board of Supervisors in the 
Department's FY 1999-2000 budget. 

The Child Welfare Services program would be allocated 
$181,462 to fund: (1) expanded adoption outreach and 
recruitment; (2) extended services to former Foster Care 
youth up to age 21, and (3) a Foster Care demonstration 
project with 1.5 new FTEs to provide more preventative and 
supportive services to families and children at risk of entry 
into the Foster Care system. 

Finally, the Food Stamp Program would receive $709,420 to 
fund 18.0 new FTEs in order to add one new Food Stamp 
intake unit to accommodate workload increases and a new 
outreach unit in response to expanded State eligibility for 
food stamps, particularly among immigrants. A portion of the 
$709,420 would be used to purchase supplies and equipment 
for the new staff. 

Attachment II is a memo from Mr. Kim which provides 
additional descriptions of the proposed expenditures in each 
program area. 

The proposed ordinance (File 99-1862) would amend the 
Annual Salary Ordinance to reflect the creation of 19.5 new 
FTEs (9.56 FTEs in FY 1999-00) which are coded in the 
ordinance as "L". or limited tenure, as follows: 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

42 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

October 20, 1999 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



No. of FY 99-00 

Positions FTE 

Child Welfare Services 

1.0 0.67 

0.5 0.34 

1.5 1.01 



Class Title 

2905 Sr. Eligibility Worker 
1632 Sr. Account Clerk 



Biweekly 
Salary 

$1,638-$1,990 

$1,433-31,736 



Total Annual Salary 
Costs for All Positions 

S42,752-$51,939 

$18,700-$22,655 



Food Stamp Program 



14.0 
2.0 
2JD 

18.0 

Total 19.5 



6.67 
1.00 
0.88 
8.55 

9.56 



2905 Sr. Eligibility Worker $1,638-81,990 
2907 EUg. Worker Supervisor $l,814-$2,204 
1426 Sr. Clerk Typist $1,316-S1,596 



$598,525-$727,146 

$94,691-$115,049 

S68.695-S83.311 

$823,363-$!, 000, 100 



The estimated annual cost of the 19.5 new FTEs would range 
from $1,029,203 at Step 1, including salaries of $823,363 and 
fringe benefits of $205,840, to $1,250,125 at Step 5, including 
salaries of $1,000,100 and fringe benefits of $250,025. 



Budget: 



The proposed budget of $12,690,062 for the nine-month 
period retroactive from October 1, 1999 through June 30, 
2000 is as follows: 



Cash Assistance Program for Immigrants (CAPI) 
CAPI Aid Payments (See Comment #1) 

Child Welfare Services 

Permanent Salaries $42,245 

Fringe Benefits 10,603 

Social Services Contracts (See Comment #1) 36,080 

Independent Living Skills Program 92,533 

(See Comment #2) 

Subtotal Child Welfare Services 

Food Stamp Program 

Permanent Salaries $362,384 

Fringe Benefits 90,958 

Equipment &. Computers (See Attachment III) 256.079 
Subtotal Food Stamp Program 

Total 



$11,799,180 



181,461 



709.421 
512,690.062 



Comments: 



1. According to Mr. Griffith, DHS estimates that between 
October 1, 1999 and October 31, 1999, approximately 
$557,183 of the $11,799,180 of CAPI cash assistance 
payments will have been expended. Therefore the subject 
ordinance (File 99-1861) should be amended to provide for 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



43 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

October 20, 1999 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



retroactivity. Mr. Griffith states that such cash assistance 
payments were made in order to not interrupt payments 
to recipients since San Mateo ceased to issue aid 
payments for San Francisco residents as of October 1, 
1999. 

2. The proposed budget allocates $11,799,180 for CAPI 
cash assistance payments for the period October 1, 1999 
to June 30, 2000. Mr. Christian Griffith of DHS advises 
that DHS has revised its estimate and the required 
amount is now estimated at .^7.669,467, or $4,129,713 less 
than the original estimate of $11,799,180. Therefore the 
proposed ordinance (File 99-1861) should be reduced by 
$4,129,713. 

According to Mr. Griffith, average monthly CAPI cash 
assistance payments are approximately $655 per case and 
DHS estimates that such payments will be made to 
between 850 to 1,750 cases per month. Attachment IV. 
provided by DHS. shows the number of cases and amount 
of CAPI cash assistance payments to be paid out per 
month for the subject nine-month period. 



3. The proposed budget contains $36,080 to fund a 
professional services contract for adoption recruitment 
and outreach activities under Child Welfare Services. 
DHS advises that it has not yet been decided whether a 
new contract will be issued or if the funds will be used to 
augment existing contracts. 

4. The proposed budget allocates $92,533 for the 
Independent Living Skills program, under Child Welfare 
Services, which prepares youth for life on their own after 
they exit the Foster Care system. DHS advises that the 
subject funds will be used to pay for aftercare services 
which include classes on budgeting, legal and health 
issues, assistance with moving to a new apartment and 
achievement awards for youth that enroll in college or a 
vocational program. 

5. The 19.5 new FTEs are designated "L" or Limited 
Tenure positions in both of the subject ordinances. 
According Mr. Griffith, if the Federal/State funds used to 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



44 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

October 20, 1999 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

pay for these positions are discontinued in the future, the 
subject positions will be eliminated. 

6. The 1.5 new FTEs for Child Welfare Services are 
currently budgeted for the period October 26, 1999 
through June 30, 2000 (18 pay periods). According to Mr. 
Griffith, the positions will not actually be filled until 
November 15, 1999 (16.5 pay periods). Therefore, the 
proposed supplemental appropriation (File 99-1861) 
should be reduced by $3,396 in Permanent Salaries and 
$849 in Fringe Benefits, for a total reduction of $4,245. 

Recommendations: 1. Amend the proposed ordinance (File 99-1861) to 

provide for retroactivity in accordance with Comment #1. 

2. In accordance with Comment #2, reduce Medi- 
Cal/CAPI Aid by $4,129,713, from $11,799,180 to 
$7,669,467 to reflect actual projected CAPI cash 
assistance payments. (File 99-1861) 

3. In accordance with Comment #6, reduce Permanent 
Salaries, by $3,396, from $404,629 to $401,233 and Fringe 
Benefits by $849 from $101,561 to $100,712. (File 99- 
1861) 

4. Reduce the total request of $12,690,062 by $4,133,958 
to $8,556,104. (File 99-1861) 

5. Approve the proposed ordinances as amended. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

45 



ADDITIONAL REVENUE FOR SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATION 
DSS 01 1G S&A WAF 455003 SS0291 Federal Subventions 



Subobj 



Title 



Additional Revenus 



40101 CHILDRENS SVCS 

40102 FFH LICENSING 

40103 ADOPTIONS SVCS 

40105 ADULT SVCS 

40106 ILP 

40124 FOOD STAMPS E&T 

40131 CalWORKS FG/U (old AFDC) 

40133 AAPELIG ADMIN 

40134 FOOD STAMPS 
45136 CAPI ADMIN 

40199 OTHER GENERAL REVENUE 



(11.365) 

(428) 

S.904 

(7.861) 

92.356 

(11.367) 

27.080 

(418) 

544 213 

(6.892) 

(5.090) 



DSS 01 1G S&A WAF 455003 SS0292 State Subventions 
Subobj Title Additional Revenue 



45103 


ADOPTIONS SVCS 


45107 


CalWIN 


45130 


Non Custodial Parent 


45131 


CalWORKS FG/U (old AFDC) 


45134 


FOOD STAMPS 


45199 


SSI-P Unit 


45205 


CAPI AID 


45301 


MEDI CAL 



23.831 

(55) 

(279) 

15.914 

380.948 

(311) 

11.799.180 

(158.296) 



I2.69C •:: 



i HE TO I AL REQUESTED ADDITIONAL APPROPRIATION 
REFLECTS CHANGES IN THE FOLLOWING PROGRAMS: 



Index Code Subobiec 



Proaram/lte 



Amount 



455020 03791 
455008 03611 
455008 02711 
455008 001 
•^55008 013 
455016 001 
455016 013 
455016 060 
455019 001 
455019 013 



Medi-CaL'CAPI Aid 


Si 


• ~ . : ■ / 


FCS/ILS Ancillary 


S 


92.533 


FCS/Adootion Contract 


S 


36.080 


FCS/.67 2905 Sr. EW 


S 


29.3S2 


FCS/Frinae on 2905 


s 


7 3 ~~ 


Admin/.34 1532 Sr. Acct Clk 


s 


12.85 :• 


Admin/Frmae on 1632 


s 


3.225 


Admin/Eauio for 20 new staff + automation 


s 


255,079 


Food Stamp/12.41 Staff 


s 


362 384 


Food Stamp/Fringe Staff 


s 


90.958 




s- 


12.690.052 



46 



:ity and County of San Francisco 



Attachment 

T 



II 



Page 1 of 3 

Department of Human Services 




Will Lightbourne 
Executive Director 

Deputy Directors 

Bill Bettencourt 

Jim Buick 

Sally Kipper 



MEMORANDUM 



August 20, 1999 



TO: Jane Morrison, President 

And Members, Human Services Commission 

FROM: Dan Kim 

Budget & Fiscal Operations Manager 

RE: Supplemental Appropriation Request for: 

• aid payments for the Cash Assistance Program for Immigrants 

• child welfare services 

• food stamp outreach and eligibility' services 

This is to submit a supplemental appropriation request in the amount of S12,690,062. These 
monies will be used to: (1) fund aid payments for the Cash Assistance Program for Immigrants 
(CAPI); (2) augment our child welfare services; and (3) food stamp outreach and eligibility 
determination. This request includes a request for 19.5 new employees. Because we have 
received additional State and Federal revenue, we are requesting no additional County general 
fund money in this fiscal year or annualized. Below, we summarize the major components of the 
request and their impact on the budget. 



Revenues 

New State/Federal Revenues: S12.690.062 

This supplemental appropriation request is funded through a variety of revenue sources targeted 
to specific program areas and does not require any increase in local general fund spending this 
fiscal year or annualized. 

We have received increased State and Federal funds in the following areas: 

• State funding for Cash Assistance Program for Immigrants aid payments; 

• Increased state and federal revenues for adoptions programs; 

• Increased state funds for the Independent Living Skills program, which helps youth prepare 
to become independent after they exit foster care at age 18; 

• Increased state and federal funding for foster care financial eligibility; 

• Increased state and federal funding for food stamp eligibility determination; and 

• Other minor, miscellaneous revenue adjustments that result from the proposed additions to 
the expenditure budget. 



■ 5) 557-5000 



P.O. Box 7988 
47 



San Francisco, California 94120 



■ ■ i- i- cn_ . . i . 1 1: 1 1 l J- J- 

fage 2 or 3 



DHS Supplemental Request 

August 20, 1999 

Page 2 



Cash Assistance Program for Immigrants 

Supplemental Cost: SI 1,799,180 

Annualized Cost: SI 5.732.240 



CAP I Aid Payments 

Last year the State created the Cash Assistance Program for Immigrants (C.API) to provide cash 
benefits for immigrants that are ineligible for the federal Supplemental Security Income (SSI) 
program. The benefits are set at a level comparable to SSI payments. Initially, San Mateo 
County performed the program administration and benefit issuance functions for most Bay .Area 
counties. Because the number of eligible persons has been much higher than the state originally 
projected, San Mateo has indicated that they can no longer support San Francisco's caseload. 
Effective September 1, 1999, San Francisco DHS will assume responsibility for its own C.API 
caseload. In the previously approved FY 1999-2000 budget, we included adequate staffing for 
the program. However, we did not included funds for the aid payments to the CAPI clients. We 
are requesting aid payments for nine months (beginning with the October 1, 1999 check), which 
are fully funded with state dollars. 



Child Welfare Services 
Supplemental Cost: S18l,461 
Annualized Cost: S229.650 



The State has provided increased funding targeted to specific Family and Children's programs, 
including Adoptions, Independent Living Skills, and Foster Care financial eligibility. 

Adoptions 

Last year we changed the staffing of our adoptions program in response to new State and Federal 
legislation that requires us to place Foster Care children into permanent placement sooner. This 
year, we have received a small augmentation to our adoptions funding that will help us find more 
adoptive homes for foster children. We intend to use the funds to perform outreach and 
recruitment activities, particularly targeting communities of color. 

Independent Living Skills Program 

The Independent Living Skills Program prepares children for life on their own after they exit the 
foster care system. Last year, the State authorized counties to extend services to former foster 
youth up to age 21. With the new state augmentation, we plan to increase these aftercare services 
available to ILS graduates as the demand is increasing. Aftercare services include classes on 
budgeting, legal and health issues, assistance with moving to a new apartment and achievement 
awards for youth that enroll in college or a vocational program. We are requesting a part time 
senior account clerk to manage all of the ILS ancillary funds and will also be requesting the 
Board of Supervisors to create a new Revolving Fund for this purpose. 



43 



Pase 3 o: 



DKS Supplemental Request 

August 20, 1999 

Pase 3 



Foster Care Eligibility 

San Francisco is participating in a "Title IV-E waiver demonstration project" that allows us to 
provide more preventive and supportive services to families and children at risk of entry into the 
Foster Care system. As the project will evaluate the cost-effectiveness of targeted services, it will 
have a rigorous research design, with both control and experimental groups. These cases require 
separate coding and tracking over a five year period. With additional state and federal funding, 
we plan to add one eligibility worker who will serve this caseload. This position will be 
dedicated to this project and will carry up to 200 cases. 



Food Stamps 

Supplemental Cost: S709,421 

Annualized Cost: S953.151 

Food Stamps Service Increase 

The FY99-00 State allocation for the Food Stamp program has increased to reflect the greater 
complexity and increased workload associated with issuing Food Stamps. We plan to use the 
additional state and federal funds to add one intake unit of Food Stamp staff to accommodate the 
workload increase. In addition, the state, through the California Food Assistance Program, has 
expanded eligibility for food stamps, particularly among immigrants. We will add an outreach 
unit that will encourase eliaible persons to enroll in the food stamp program. These positions 
will result in no increase in General Fund costs. With the additional allocation, we will also 
purchase supplies and equipment for the new staff as well as increase automation for the existing 
staff. 



If you have any questions about this request, please call Dan Kim at 557-5661. 



Attachment: Request for Supplemental Appropriation 



49 



r. L. LflLllUieil L 111 



Item Unit Cost Total Justification 


PC Systems 


48 


54,245 


S 203,750 


PCs, software, and WAN infrastructure for 
20 new positions, 28 new PCs to ensure 
program automation consistency in 
oyistina units 


1440 Harrison Wiring 






$ 52319 


The current wiring in 1440 Harnson is 
inadequate to support the additional voice 
and data needs we added when we 
opened to CAPI unit at that site In order 
to insure the stability of the WAN in that 
building we must upgrade some of the 
wrina to Cateaorv 5 


Total cost 






S 256.079 





50 



CAPI Average cost 
Month Caseload per Case 


Total 


n ct-?? 


R5o 


J R5=; 51 


I 557 183 50 


Nov -9 9 


963 


$ 655.51 


5 630.928.38 


Dpt-99 


1075 


J 655 51 


J 704 R73 2^ 


Jan-00 


1188 


$ 655.51 


J 778.418.13 


Feh-nn 


I3nn 


S R55 51 


<J R5? 1fi3 00 


Mar-00 


1413 


S 655.51 


S 925.907.88 


Apr-nn 


1525 


I 655 51 


S 999 R52 75 


Mav-00 


1638 


$ 655.51 


S 1.073.397.63 


Jun-00 


1750 


5 R55 51 


J 1 147 142 50 


Tntal FY 9^-00 Cnqt 




4 7.fifi9.467.nn 



51 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

October 20, 1999 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



Item 5 -File 99-1880 

Department: 

Items: 



Amount: 
Source of Funds: 
Description: 



Department of Public Health (DPH) 

Supplemental appropriation in the amount of $3,101,242 in 
AB 1661 State Relief Funds payable by the State to San 
Francisco to offset a shortfall in the FY 1999-2000 DPH 
budget as a result of the State's reduced allocation of Tobacco 
Tax Fund revenues to San Francisco under the California 
Healthcare for Indigents Program (CHIP). 

$3,101,242 

AB 1661 State Relief Funds 

In October of 1989, the DPH began its implementation of 
State Assembly Bill (AB) 75, the Proposition 99/Tobacco Tax 
Bill. State AB 75 created the California Healthcare for 
Indigents Program (CHIP) to provide counties with Tobacco 
Tax Revenue funds for the provision and expansion of health 
care services to medically indigent adults. 

The CHIP reimburses participating County hospitals, as well 
as private or non-County hospitals, for inpatient, outpatient 
and emergency services and participating private physicians 
for emergency, obstetric and pediatric services provided to 
indigent persons. 

The DPH's FY 1999-2000 budget previously approved by the 
Board of Supervisors includes $7,961,916 in Tobacco Tax 
Fund revenues for the CHIP. According to Ms. Ann Carey of 
the Controller's Office, San Francisco's allocation of Tobacco 
Tax Fund revenues for FY 1999-2000 will be $4,860,674 
which is $3,101,242 less than the $7,961,916 originally 
anticipated. Ms. Carey reports that the decrease is due to a 
reduction in the State's allocation of Tobacco Tax Fund 
revenues to the CHIP and a decrease in tobacco sales. 

According to Ms. Carey, under State Assembly Bill (AB) 
1661, the State intends to allocate $150 million in AB 1661 
State Relief Funds. The AB 1661 allocation will be based on 
population and on the amount of local Property Taxes to be 
transferred by the counties to school districts in 1999 under 
the State-mandated Educational Revenue Augmentation 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



52 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

October 20, 1999 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



Comments: 



Fund (ERAF). Ms. Carey reports that San Francisco will 
receive $1,755,382 based on its population and at least that 
amount from the ERAF allocations, for a total of at least 
$3,510,764. The ERAF allocations will be determined once 
the State has compiled the results of a survey submitted to 
the State by counties on October 1, 1999, according to Ms. 
Carey. 

The Controller recommends that the City's AB 1661 
allocation be used to backfill the $3,101,242 shortfall in the 
FY 1999-2000 DPH budget as a result of the State's reduced 
allocation of Tobacco Tax Fund revenues to San Francisco 
under the CHIP. The proposed supplemental appropriation 
would allocate a total of $3,101,242 in AB 1661 funds 
($1,755,382 from the allocation based on population and 
$1,345,860 from the as-yet to be determined allocation based 
on ERAF) for the CHIP. Ms. Carey states that any remaining 
funds received under AB 1661 would accrue to the City's 
General Fund. 

1. The Attachment to this report is a memo from Ms. 
Monique Zmuda of the DPH explaining why the DPH 
1999-2000 budgeted revenues for the CHIP were projected to 
be $7,961,916, or $3,101,242 more, than the actual CHIP 
allocation of $4,860,674. Ms Zmuda states that the final 
State budget was approved in July of 1999, after the DPH's 
FY 1999-2000 budget was complete. According to Ms. Zmuda, 
on August 12. 1999 the Board of Supervisors' Public Health 
and Environment Committee approved a resolution 
authorizing the DPH to accept and expend the FY* 1999-2000 
CHIP allocation in the amount of $7,961,916. Ms. Zmuda 
reports that she reported at that time to the Public Health 
and Environment Committee that the Controller's Office 
expected that the City would receive additional funds from 
the State which could be used to offset the shortfall in 
Tobacco Tax Revenue funding. 

2. The subject supplemental appropriation of $3,101,242 in 
AB 1661 State Relief Funds would offset the reduction in 
Tobacco Tax Fund revenues of $3,101,242, resulting in no net 
reduction or increase in the DPH's FY" 1999-2000 budget. 



Recommendation: Approve the proposed ordinance. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



53 



Attachment 



MEMORANDUM 



II =5512* v -< 




October 13, 


1999 


TO: 


Harvey Rose 
Budget Analyst 



^^ 



FROM: Monique Zmuda 

Chief Financial Officer 

RE: Prop 99 Tobacco Tax Revenues 



This memo is in response to your request for information regarding the Department of Public 
Health's knowledge of reduced State funding to the Prop 99 California Healthcare for Indigents 
Program (CHIP). As you reported, tobacco tax revenues to the Department of Public Health 
CHIP program have been reduced by $3.1 to $4.9 million in FY 99-00. The Controller now 
proposes to substitute increased State revenues from the Educational Revenue Augmentation 
Fund to backfill the loss of revenue to CHIP programs. 

As a part of the budget process, the Department of Public Health actively monitored 
developments in the preparation of the FY 99-00 State budget, including developments affecting 
Prop 99 funds. However, the Department of Public Health typically does not adjust its budget 
based on preliminary State budget projections, since these are subject to significant change 
during the State budget process. For example, this year's State budget included a proposal from 
Governor Davis to reduce Prop 99 tobacco tax revenues. At the same time, the State Legislature 
had introduced proposals to backfill or to restore funds to Prop 99 programs. In the end, 
legislative attempts to restore funding to Prop 99 programs were not successful and the final 
State budget, enacted in July, included reduced tobacco tax revenues to San Francisco. This final 
State budget was approved after the Department's FY 99-00 budget was complete. 

The Controller also actively monitors State budget proposals and reviewed preliminary revenue 
projections during development of the budget for the Department of Public Health. Preliminary 
estimates had indicated that increased State revenues from other sources would offset reductions 
in revenue from Prop 99. As a result, the FY 99-00 budget for the Department of Public Health 
was not revised. 

In late July 1999, the Department of Public Health received notification of the final State 
allocation to San Francisco for the Prop 99 California Healthcare for Indigents Program (CHIP). 
This notification occurred after approval of the final FY 99-00 budget. On August 12 the Public 
Health and Environment Committee held a hearing to approve a resolution authorizing the 
Department of Public Health to accept and expend the FY 99-00 CHIP allocation. At this rime, 
Ann Carey from the Controller's Office reported that the City expected additional funds from the 
State that would be used to offset the shortfall in Prop 99 funding. 



I.:\BOS\Tob»cco_SUpp.(ioc 10/13/99 

Finance 101 Grove Street San Francisco, CA 94102 



54 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

October 20, 1999 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



Item 6 - File 99-1769 

Department: 

Item: 



Recreation and Park Department 

Resolution determining and declaring tbat tbe public 
interest and necessity demand the acquisition, 
rehabilitation, renovation, improvement, construction or 
reconstruction by the City and County of San Francisco of 
parks and recreation facilities and properties, and all 
other works, property and structures necessary or 
convenient for the foregoing purposes, that the estimated 
cost of $110,000,000 for the said municipal improvements 
is and will be too great to be paid out of the ordinary 
annual income and revenue of the City and County and 
will require the incurring of a bonded indebtedness, and 
finding that the proposed project is in conformity with the 
priority policies of Planning Code Section 101.1(b) and 
with the General Plan consistency requirement of 
Administrative Code Section 2A.53. 



Amount: 
Description: 



$110,000,000 

The State General Obligation Bond Law requires that, in 
order for the City to issue General Obligation Bonds, a 
resolution of public interest and necessity must first be 
adopted by a two-thirds vote of the Board of Supervisors, 
and the proposed bonds must then be approved by two- 
thirds of the electorate. If the proposed resolution 
(determining and declaring that public interest and 
necessity justify the proposed bonds) is approved by a 
two-thirds vote of the Board of Supervisors, the proposed 
General Obligation Bond measure would be scheduled for 
a vote by the San Francisco electorate for the Special 
Election of March 7, 2000. 

The proposed $110,000,000 General Obligation Bond 
Issue for the Recreation and Park Department would be 
issued over a five-year period, beginning in October of 
2000, to provide $110,000,000 of the estimated total 
projects costs of $380,000,000 for the renovation and 
construction of Recreation and Park Department 
facilities. The balance of $270,000,000 ($3S0,0O0,000 less 
$110,000,000) will be provided from the funding sources 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

55 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

October 20, 1999 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

detailed in the Attachment, provided by Ms. Elizabeth 
Goldstein of the Recreation and Park Department. 

According to the Bond Program Report, provided by Ms. 
Goldstein, the bond funds will be used for the general 
rehabilitation and/or replacement of deteriorated 
Recreation and Park Department facilities. Specifically, 
the bond program will provide funding for the 
improvement of major recreation centers and clubhouses, 
pools, restrooms, playgrounds, park infrastructure, 
landscape, reforestation and erosion control, courts and 
playing fields, and land acquisition. 

Budget: The total cost of all the proposed projects is estimated to 

be approximately $380,000,000. The Attachment 
provided by the Recreation and Park Department is a 
memorandum which contains the estimated costs of each 
of the capital improvement projects totaling $380,000,000, 
as well as each of the funding sources to pay for the 
project, including the subject request of $110,000,000 in 
General Obligation Bonds. This memorandum also 
identifies the status of each of these funding sources. 

Comments: 1. The Bond Program Report, prepared by the Recreation 

and Park Department, contains descriptions of the capital 
improvements proposed to be funded for this 
$380,000,000 project, including the proposed 
$110,000,000 in General Obligation Bonds and other 
sources listed above. This Report is in file with the Clerk 
of the Board of Supervisors. 

2. According to Ms. Laura Bordelon of the Mayor's Office 
of Public Finance, the City Charter provides for a legal 
debt limit of three percent of net assessed property value. 
The Mayor's Office of Public Finance has calculated the 
City's Debt Limit Ratio as follows: 

Total Debt Limit for FY 1999-2000 $2,114,446,916 
Estimated Outstanding General Obligation 

Bonds as of June 30, 1999 967.925.000 

Remaining General Obligation Capacity $1,146,521,916 

However, it should also be noted that the Laguna Honda 
Hospital General Obligation Bond measure for 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

56 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

October 20, 1999 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



$299,000,000 is on the November 2, 1999, ballot, which if 
approved by the voters would further reduce the City's 
remaining General Obligation bonding capacity to 
$847,521,916. 

If the subject bond issue of $110,000,000 proposed for the 
March 7, 2000, ballot were to be approved by voters, and 
all $110,000,000 in bonds were issued in FY 1999-2000, 
the remaining General Obligation bonding capacity would 
be $737,521,916. However, pursuant to the proposed plan 
of the Recreation and Park Department, Ms. Bordelon 
advises that the Recreation and Park Department bonds 
are anticipated to be sold in five separate issuances, 
within approximately five years after approval, thus 
allowing for a slightly larger General Obligation bonding 
capacity to remain until the subsequent bonds are sold. 
According to Ms. Bordelon, the amount of debt that could 
be issued in any given year is partly a function of the level 
of payments on existing debt, which fluctuates as older 
bond issues are retired and new bonds are issued. 

The Budget Analyst also notes that Item 7, File 99-1770 
of this report contains a resolution for $87,445,000 of 
General Obligation Bonds for the California Academy of 
Sciences, which is scheduled to be brought to the voters 
on March 7, 2000. If this $87,445,000 Academy of 
Sciences General Obligation Bond measure is also 
approved at that time, and all $87,445,000 in bonds were 
issued in FY 1999-2000, it would further reduce the City's 
General Obligation bonding capacity to $650,076,916. 

3. According to Ms. Bordelon, assuming the bonds are 
issued in an interest rate environment that reflects the 
norms for the past ten years, the proposed bonds would 
bear a true interest cost of 6.0 percent. It is anticipated 
that there will be five separate bond issuances, 
$20,000,000 in October of 2000, $25,000,000 in October of 
2001, $35,000,000 in October of 2002, $15,000,000 in 
October of 2003 and $15,000,000 in October of 2004. 
Upon issuance of the entire $110,000,000, the average 
annual debt service would be approximately $9,627,175 
and the total debt service would be $192,543,500 for the 
proposed 20-year bond period. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

57 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

October 20, 1999 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



4. Section 3 of the proposed resolution also states that 
the Board of Supervisors finds and declares that the 
proposed project is (1) in conformity with the priority 
policies of Section 101.1(b) of the City Planning Code and 
(2) in accordance with Section 2A. 53(f) of the City 
Administrative Code, that the proposed project is 
consistent with the City's General Plan and adopts the 
findings of the City Planning Departmen as set forth in 
the General Plan Referral Report, which is undated. Mr. 
Steve Shotland of the Planning Department reports that 
the General Plan Referral Report was issued on 
September 28, 1999. Section 3 of the proposed resolution 
should therefore be amended to include the date of 
September 28, 1999 for the General Plan Referral Report. 

5. According to Ms. Ann Carey of the Controller's Office, 
if $110,000,000 in bonds were to be issued, the bonds 
would result in an increase in the Property Tax rate of 
approximately $0.01420 per $100 of assessed value. At 
this rate, the owner of a single-family residence assessed 
at $400,000, assuming the $7,000 homeowner's 
exemption, would pay an average of $55.91 in additional 
annual Property Taxes beginning in FY2000-2001. 

6. As shown in the Attachment provided by the 
Recreation and Park Department, the $270,000,000 in 
other funding sources needed for this project are 
contingent on approval of Charter Amendments, State 
voter approval, Congressional approval and private 
donations. Ms. Goldstein reports that any shortfall in 
such anticipated funding sources will result in a reduction 
of the project. 

7. On October 8, 1999, the Capital Improvement 
Advisory Committee (CLAC) approved the proposed 
General Obligation Bond measure. 

8. If the electorate approves the proposed General 
Obligation Bonds, the subsequent issuance and sale of 
such bonds would require approval by the Board of 
Supervisors. Furthermore, expenditure of any of the 
proceeds of the proposed General Obligation Bonds by the 
Recreation and Park Department would also require a 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

58 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

October 20, 1999 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



subsequent supplemental appropriation ordinance to b< 
approved by the Board of Supervisors. 



Recommendation: Amend the proposed resolution by amending Section 3 to 

include the date of September 28, 1999 for the General 
Plan Referral Report, in accordance with Comment No. 4 
above. 

Approval of the proposed resolution, as amended, is a 
policy matter for the Board of Supervisors. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

59 



Park Renaissance 



4-1S 831 20SS 



13/14/-99 02:27P P . 0B2 



Attachment 
Page 1 of 3 



City and County of San Francisco 



Recreation and Park Department 




October 14, 1999 

Mr. James Edison 

Office of Harvey Rose 

Budget Analyst 

Fox Plaza 

1390 Market, Suite 1025 

San Francisco, C A 94102 

Dear Mi. Edison: 

You requested additional information regarding the potential sources of funds that wc 
have identified in out application for the park bond The potential uses and sources of the 
funds arc outlined in the attached tables. It is important to note that these tables refer to the 
Department's total projected capital need based a scries of studies and conditions 
investigations dune over the last few vears. 



The following is the smtus of the various finding sources referred to in the tabic of 
potential sources of funds. 

Open Space Fund: Charter section 16.107 sets aside an amount equal to .025 cents for every 
Si CO assessed vaularion from the annual tax levy to be deposited into the Fund. The fund 
currently rencs the Department approximately SI 6 million annually from proDcrty taxes. 
Charter section 16.107 is due to sunset in fiscal year 2004-05. Supervisor Gavin Kewsom 
introduced a Charter amendment to be placed en the March 2000 ballot, at the Board of 
Supervisors on October 12 to extend the Open Space Fund for 30 years. (See Charter 
Amendment language - section (b)- page 2.) The Open Space Fund currerrdy supclies the 
only steady source of caoitai and land acquisition funding that the Department receives. The 
fund also supports other programs such as the Natural Areas Management Program, 
Community Gardens and .After-School Programs. Tnc Charter amendment would allow the 
Department to dedicate new or enhanced revenues to these programs. .As the Open Space 
Fund grows and Department revenues grow, we anticipate increasing the amount spent out of 
the Fund for capital and land acquisition purposes. 

State Funding: The State Legislature has passed, and the Governor has signed, a bond 
package entitled the Villaraigosa-Keeiey Urban Parks, Clean Water, and Coastal Protection 
Bond Act of 20C0. This bond proposal goes before the electorate in March. 2000. Tnc State 
bond package includes a competitive municipal grant program of S500 million. Most of the 
urban parks funding is targeted for the state's densest cities, including San Francisco. It also 



McLaren Lodge, Golden Gate Park 

501 Stanyan Street 

San Francisco, CA 94117-1898 



Prions: (415) SCI -2779 
Fax: (415) 831-:29€ 



60 



._.« Attachment 

-k Renaissance 41S 831 20SS 10/14.^S9 02:27P P . 003 «-— rr — - — o 

rage 2 or j 



includes a specific allocation for Golden Gale Park of SI 5 million. Wc have conservatively 
estimated that we will be able to win S30 million from this bond. Tnis estimate is based on the 
various program categories that the City would be eligible for and a general apDortioning 
throughout the state. A less conservative estimate might be $50-60 million. 
In addition to the State Park bond program, the State has a number of granting programs that 
the Department is eligible for. For instance, we currently have three grants before the 
California Coastal Conservancy for alm ost S 1 million. We have received positive feedback 
on these proposals and anticipate some resolution by early in the calendar year. 

Federal Funding: The Land and Water Conservation Fund was created by Congress several 
decades ago. It dedicates off-shore oil revenues to a number of environmental and park- 
related programs. However, over the last decade or so Congress has authorized very little 
funding for park purposes. Congress is currently considering several pieces of legislation that 
would increase the money flowing through the program. One of the major elements is an 
enhanced municipal granting program that would come through the states. In the past, San 
Francisco has been the recipient of funds from the Land and Water Conservation Fund We 
anticipate passage of one of these pieces of legislation m the next month or so. 

Revenue and Lease Bonds: If passed by the voters the amendment to Charter section 16.107 
ailows the Board of Supervisors to authorize the issuance of revenue bonds or other 
instruments of indebtedness. (Please Charter .Amendment language - Section (d) on page 3.) 
This capacity would be used in those instances when key capital needs such as land 
acquisition or a specific capital project outstrips the bond or other Open Space funding 
available. 

Private Donations: The Friends of Recreation and Park currently raises $35 million a year 
for park projects. The S40 million goal for private donations represents an annua] goal of S4 
million over current actuals. The Conservatory of Flowers and other recent efforts have given 
the Department and the Friends confidence that these goals arc achievable 

I hope this information is helpfuL Please let me know if you have any additional questions. 




ith Goldstein 
Director of Operational and Physical Planning 



61 



Pa>-k Renaissar 



*is 831 20ss ie-'i4/93 02:27p p Be* Attachment 

Page J of 3 



Capital Needs* 




Buildings 




Clubhouses (40) 


S 39.6 


Pools (7) 


35.5 


RecreaEofl Centers (14) 


107.3 


Subtotal 


51710 


Parks* 




Neighborhood Parks (105) 


$104.0 


Major Paris (49) 


43.0 


Subtotal 


5152.0 


Golden Gate Park 


5 50-0 


Total 


S3SO.0 


*In millions of dollars 




-Over tea year period. 




"Urban forestry is included is work item in other categories. 



Potential Sources of Funds for 


Capital Needs-'- 


Open Space Fund (S15/year) 


S 150.0 


State Funding 


3O.0 


Federal Funding (LA.WCF) 


3O.0 


GO Bond 


nrxo 


Revenue or Lease Bond 


:ojo 


Private Dor-abons 


40.0 


Total 


S3sao 


• In millions of dollars 




-*-Over ten year period. 





62 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

October 20, 1999 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



Item 



File 99-1770 



Departments: 



Item: 



Academy of Sciences 

Resolution determining and declaring that the 
public interest and necessity demand municipal 
improvements consisting of the acquisition, 
rehabilitation, renovation, improvement, 

construction or reconstruction by the City and 
County of San Francisco of the California Academy 
of Sciences and all other works, property and 
structures necessary or convenient for the foregoing 
purposes, that the estimated cost of $87,980,000 for 
said municipal improvements is and will be too 
great to be paid out of the ordinary annual income 
and revenue of said City and County and will 
require the incurring of bonded indebtedness; 
finding the proposed project is in conformity with 
the priority policies of Planning Code Section 
101.1(b) and with the General Plan consistency 
requirement of Administrative Code Section 2A.53. 



Amount: 
Description: 



$87,445,000 

The State General Obligation Bond Law requires 
that, in order for the City to issue General 
Obligation Bonds, a resolution of public interest 
and necessity must first be adopted by a two-thirds 
vote of the Board of Supervisors, and then the 
proposed bonds must be approved by two-thirds of 
the electorate. If the proposed resolution is 
approved by the Board of Supervisors, the proposed 
General Obligation Bond measure would be 
scheduled for a vote by the San Francisco electorate 
for the Special Election of March 7, 2000. 

The proposed $87,445,000 of General Obligation 
Bonds for the California Academy of Sciences would 
be used to renovate, seismically upgrade and 
expand the City-owned Academy of Science 
facilities, located in Golden Gate Park. As 
contained in the Bond Program Report, the 
Academy of Sciences was initially constructed in 
1916, with one -third of the current facility 
completed by 1932 and over half of the current 

BOARD OF SUPER\aSORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

October 20, 1999 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

facility completed by 1960. The newest renovations 
were undertaken in 1991. The current Academy of 
Sciences complex consists of 12 separate buildings 
and two enclosed courtyards that total 378,443 
square feet of space. 

Under the proposed project, Bird Hall, which has 
been closed to the public since damage was 
incurred during the Loma Prieta earthquake in 
1989, would be demolished, to be replaced by a new 
Science Education Center. Seismic upgrades would 
also be completed on the remainder the buildings, 
as well as improvements for disabled access and 
compliance with all health and safety codes. In 
addition, the proposed project would replace the 
aging infrastructure, existing leaking roofs and 
outdated electrical, plumbing and mechanical 
systems throughout the facilities. A second floor 
would be added to the existing Science Hall for 
additional scientific research on biodiversity and 
the former Whale Courtyard would be renovated. 
The newly renovated facility would add 
approximately another 50,000 square feet, or an 
increase of approximately 12 percent for a total of 
approximately 428,443 square feet of space. 

Budget: The total proposed project cost is $146,230,000, 

including $86,230,000 from the bond proceeds and 
$60,000,000 of private Academy of Science 
contributions and other government funds. 
Attachment I. provided by the Academy of Sciences, 
contains a budget for the $146,230,000 in proposed 
capital improvements and related costs. 

As shown in Attachment II. the total amount of the 
bonds is currently estimated at $87,445,000, based 
on the Academy of Sciences project cost of 
$86,230,000. and related bond underwriter and 
bond issuance costs totaling $1,215,000. 

Comments: 1. The Bond Program Report, prepared by the 

Academy of Sciences, contains detailed descriptions 
of the current problems with the Academy of 
Sciences facilities and the proposed benefits to be 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

64 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

October 20, 1999 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



derived from the proposed project. This Report is on 
file with the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors. 

2. As contained in the Bond Program Report, if the 
proposed resolution is approved by the Board of 
Supervisors and a subsequent bond measure is 
approved by the voters in March of 2000, detailed 
designs for the project would be developed between 
April of 2000 and November of 2001, a 20-month 
period. According to Mr. Andy Klemer of the 
Paratus Group, a private consulting firm retained 
as the Project Manager by the Academy of Sciences, 
construction on the proposed project is estimated to 
begin in December of 2001. According to Mr. 
Klemer, it is anticipated that the project would be 
completed and the new facility operating by early 
2006. Mr. Klemer advises that it is likely that the 
Academy of Sciences facilities in Golden Gate Park 
will be largely closed during the approximately 
four -year construction period. 

Mr. Klemer notes that during this same 
approximate four-year construction period, the 
DeYoung Museum, which is located directly across 
the concourse from the Academy of Sciences 
facilities in Golden Gate Park, will also be 
undergoing major renovations and seismic 
upgrades, as a result of an estimated $135 million 
privately funded project. In addition, Mr. Klemer 
advises that an estimated $50 to $60 million 
privately funded underground parking garage will 
be constructed under the concourse, directly in 
front of the Academy of Sciences buildings during 
approximately this same time period. 

3. According to Ms. Sarah Hollenbeck of the 
Mayor's Office of Public Finance, the City Charter 
provides for a legal debt limit of three percent of 
net assessed property value. The Mayor's Office of 
Public Finance has calculated the City's Debt Limit 
Ratio as follows: 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



65 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

October 20, 1999 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



Total Debt Limit for FY 1999-2000 $2,114,446,916 

Estimated Outstanding General Obligation Bonds 

As of June 30, 2000 967.925.000 

Remaining General Obligation Capacity $1,146,521,916 

However, it should also be noted that the Laguna 
Honda Hospital General Obligation bond measure 
for $299,000,000 is on the November 2, 1999 ballot, 
which if approved by the voters, would further 
reduce the City's remaining General Obligation 
bonding capacity to $847,521,916. 

If the subject Academy of Sciences bond issue of 
$87,445,000 proposed for the March of 2000 ballot 
were also to be approved by the voters, the 
remaining General Obligation bonding capacity 
would then be reduced to $760,076,916. However, 
Ms. Hollenbeck advises that the Academy of 
Sciences bonds are anticipated to be sold in two 
separate issuances, thus allowing for a slightly 
larger General Obligation bonding capacity to 
remain until the subsequent bonds are sold. 
According to Ms. Hollenbeck, the amount of debt 
that can be issued in any given year is partly a 
function of the level of payments on existing debt, 
which fluctuates as older bond issues are retired 
and new bonds are issued. 

The Budget Analyst also notes that Item 6, File 99- 
1769 of this report contains a resolution for 
$110,000,000 of General Obligation bonds for the 
Recreation and Park Department, which is 
scheduled to be brought to the voters on March 7, 
2000. If this $110,000,000 Recreation and Park 
General Obligation Bond measure is also approved 
at that time, and all $110,000,000 in bonds were 
issued in FY 1999-2000, it would further reduce the 
City's General Obligation bonding capacity to 
$650,076,916. 

4. According to Ms. Hollenbeck, assuming the 
proposed Academy of Science bonds are issued in 
an interest environment which reflects the norms 
for the past ten years, the Academy of Science 
bonds would bear a true interest cost of six percent. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



66 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

October 20, 1999 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



It is anticipated that there will be two separate 
bond issuances, one for $11,380,000 in 
approximately May of 2000 and one for $76,065,000 
in approximately October of 2001, for a total of 
$87,445,000. Upon issuance of the entire 
$87,445,000, the average annual debt service would 
be approximately $7,222,673 and total debt service 
would be $151,676,138 for the proposed 21-year 
bond period. 

5. Section 3 of the proposed resolution also states 
that the Board of Supervisors finds and declares 
that the proposed project is (1) in conformity with 
the priority policies of Section 101.1(b) of the City 
Planning Code and (2) in accordance with Section 
2A.53(f) of the City Administrative Code, that the 
proposed project is consistent with the City's 
General Plan and adopts the findings of the City 
Planning Department as set forth in the General 
Plan Referral Report, which is undated. Mr. Steve 
Shotland of the Planning Department reports that 
the General Plan Referral Report was issued on 
September 28, 1999. Section 3 of the proposed 
resolution should therefore be amended to include 
the date of September 28, 1999 for the General 
Plan Referral Report. 

6. According to Ms. Ann Carey of the Controller's 
Office, if $87,445,000 in bonds were to be issued, 
the bonds would result in an increase in the 
Property Tax rate of approximately $.011206 per 
$100 of assessed value. At this rate, the owner of a 
single-family residence assessed at $400,000, 
assuming the $7,000 homeowner's exemption, 
would pay an average of $44.04 in additional 
annual Propertj r Taxes beginning in FY 2001. 

7. The proposed resolution states that the Academy 
of Sciences General Obligation Bond is in the 
amount of $87,980,000. However, as discussed in 
the Budget Section above, the actual General 
Obligation Bond proceeds required for the proposed 
project are $86,230,000 and including the related 
bond underwriter and bond issuance costs of 
$1,215,000, the total amount of the bonds is 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

67 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

October 20, 1999 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



estimated to total $87,445,000. Therefore, the 
proposed resolution should be amended to reflect 
that the total bond amount is S*7.445,000, instead 
of $87,980,000, a reduction of $535,000. 

8. According to Mr. Klemer, the Academy of 
Sciences does not currently have funds set aside for 
the projected $60 million of private contributions 
and other government funds to support the total 
estimated project costs of $146,230,000. However, 
Mr. Klemer advises that the Academy of Sciences 
plans to undertake a major capital campaign to 
raise these $60 million of funds. In addition, Mr. 
Klemer reports that, as indicated in the Bond 
Program Report, in the event that the final project 
costs are in excess of the $87,445,000 General 
Obligation Bond monies, and any available interest 
earnings, the only source of additional funding 
would be through contributions raised by the 
Academy of Sciences. 

Mr. David Sanchez of the City Attorneys Office 
reports that a subsequent ordinance must be 
approved by the Board of Supervisors, if this 
subject resolution is approved by the Board, to 
enable the proposed bond measure to be placed on 
the March 7, 2000 ballot. Mr. Sanchez indicates 
that he is currently drafting language for this 
subsequent ordinance to state that the City's 
obligation would be limited by the proposed total 
$87,445,000 General Obligation Bond measure, and 
that any cost overruns would be the responsibility 
of the Academy of Sciences. 

9. As shown in the Bond Program Report, the 
annual operating costs for the Academy of Sciences 
is currently approximately $19.2 million. In FY 
1998-99. the City provided a total of $1,691,304 of 
General Fund revenue to the Academy of Sciences. 
The Bond Program Report states that there is not 
anticipated to be any significant impact on the 
overall operating costs, including program staffing. 
facility staffing and operations and maintenance of 
the buildings as a result of the proposed 
improvements. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



68 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

October 20, 1999 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

10. On October 6, 1999, the Capital Improvement 
Advisory Committee (CIAC) approved the proposed 
General Obligation Bond measure. 

11. If the electorate approves the proposed General 
Obligation Bonds, the subsequent issuance and 
sale of such bonds would require approval by the 
Board of Supervisors. Furthermore, expenditure of 
any of the proceeds of the proposed General 
Obligation Bonds by the Academy of Sciences 
would also require a subsequent supplemental 
appropriation ordinance to be approved by the 
Board of Supervisors. 

Recommendations: Amend the proposed resolution by (1) amending 

Section 3 to include the date of September 28, 1999 
for the General Plan Referral Report and (2) 
changing the amount of the General Obligation 
Bonds from $87,980,000 to $87,445,000, in 
accordance with Comments Nos. 5 and 7 above. 

Approval of the proposed resolution, as amended, is 
a policy matter for the Board of Supervisors. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

69 



OCT. -13' 99 (WED) 12:48 CCSF PUBLIC FIN 



rtixacnmerii: l 
u age 1 ot 2 



Attachment IV 

Proposed Public Project Budget 
Seismic Renovation and Code Compliance 



General Construction Cost in Thojsands 



Bond 


Other 


Total 


Funded 


Funded 


Cost 


Cost 


Cost 





1.0 Earthwork and Demolition 



Total 2.0 Building Shell 



S2.691 



S39.081 



$0 



SO 



$2,691 



I.O Building Shell 








Foundations 


SS20 


SO 


$620 


Substructure 


5.232 





5.232 


Superstructure 


10,913 





10,913 


Architectural Finishes 


10,863 


O 


10,863 


Mechanical Systems 


7.257 





7,257 


Electrical Systems 


3,947 





3.947 


Site Utilities 


250 





250 



S39.C31 



3.0 Special Finishes 








Tank Protective Coatings 


S65 


SO 


$65 


Acrylic Viewing Windows 












Total 3.0 Special Finishes 



$65 



$0 



S65 



4.0 Specialized Equipment 
Life Support Systems 
Hoists . . 
Group 1 Equipment 



S380 



2,000 



$0 





$380 



2,000 



Total 4.0 Specialized Equipment 


$2,380 


so 


S2.360 


5.0 Sltework 

Service/Corporation Yard Repairs 
Terraces and Entries 
Sitework Repairs 


$728 
773 

i : 


$0 




S728 

773 
525 


Total 5.0 Sitework 


S2.026 


so 


$2,026 


Subtotal 


S46.243 


so 


$45,243 


General Conditions 
Contractor's Overhead & Profit 


5.318 
2,052 







5.318 

2,052 


Subtotal 


$53,623 


so 


553.623 


6.0 Exhibitry 


$0 . 


23.750 . 


$23,750 


Subtotal 


$53,623 


S23.750 


$77,373 


Scope Development Contingency 


5.362 


2,375 


7.737 


Subtotal 


$58,985 


$26,125 


$85,111 


Construction Contingency 
Escalation 


5.899 
8.111 


2,613 
3,592 


8.511 

11.703 



Total Construction Cost in Thousands 



$72,995 S32.330 S105.324 



70 



)CT. -13' 99 (WED) 12:48 CCSF PUBLIC FINANCE 



Page 2 of 2 



Project Cost in Thousands 



Bond Other Total 

Funded Funded Cost 

Cost Cost 



Total Construction Cost in Thousands 572.995 532.330 5105.324 



Other Project Costs In Thousands 



7.0 Hazardous Materials Mitigation Cost 51,250 



SO • 51.250 



B.O Permits & Fees 



Review of Existing EIR 


$800 


so 


S800 


Professional Design Fees 





9.137 


9.137 


Exhibit/FF&E Design Fees 





8,082 


8,082 


Project & Construction Management 





5,055 


5,056 


Civil & Geotechnical Engineering 


170 • 


too 


270 


Hazmat Mitigation Design Fees 


45 





45 


Security & MIS Consultants 


75 





75. 


Permits & Plan Check Fees 


800 





800 


Inspections & Testing 


1.000 





1,000 


Owner's Insurance & Performance B 


985 





9B5 


Utility Fees 


250 





250 


City Agency Fees 


700 





700 


Bond Legal & Financing 





o • 





General Project Legal Fees 





500 


500 


Inhouse Facilities Engineering 





195 


1S5 



Subtotal 8.0 Permits & Fees 



$4,825 523,070 527,890 



9.0 Temporary Systems, Relocation & Mo 54.500 



$0 $4,500 



10.0 FF&E 



$0 54,500 



54.500 



1 1 .0 Telecommunications & Security Syst 51,200 5100 51,300 

12.0 Art Enrichment 51,460 $0 51,460 

Total Other Project Costs 513,235 $27,670 $40,906 

i 
Total Project Cost 



$86,230 S60,O00 $146,230 



71 



u«;. -io ^intui u: 10 OWr KIBUv Fll 



ATTACHMENT VI 



California Academy of Sciences 

Proposed General Obligation Bond Measure 

$86,230,000 Project Cost 

Aggregate Debt Service 

Total Bond Par Amount: $87,445,000 



Aggregate Estimated Sources and Use of Funds 



Estimated Sources: 

Par Amount of Bonds $87,445,000 



Total $87,445,000 



Estimated Uses: 

Project Fund $86,230,000 
Underwriters' Discount 612,115 
Costs of Issuance 600,000 
Rounding . 2,885 

Total $67,445,000 



72 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

October 20, 1999 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

Item 8-99-1859 



Departments: 



Department of Public Works (DPW) 
Public Utilities Commission (PUC) 
Real Estate Department (DRE) 



Item: 



Resolution authorizing the acquisition by the City of Lots 
3 and 4 in Assessor's Block 4501 to permit the Public 
Utilities Commission (PUC) to expand the 1,232 square 
foot Southeast Water Pollution Control Plant Booster 
Pump Station by an additional 2,287 square feet, and 
adopting findings pursuant to City Planning Code Section 
101.1. 



Comment: 



Recommendation: 



Mr. Harry Quinn of the DRE has requested that this 
proposed resolution be continued to the call of the Chair. 

Continue the proposed resolution to the call of the Chair, 
as requested by the DRE. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



73 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

October 20, 1999 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



Item 9 - File 99-1860 
Department: 

Item: 

Location: 
Purpose of Lease: 

Lessor: 

Lessee: 

No. of Sq. Ft. and 
Cost Per Month: 



Annual Cost: 

Increase over 
Prior Lease: 



Source of Funds: 



Utilities and Janitor 
Provided by Lessee: 



Public Transportation Commission (PTC) 
Municipal Railway (MUNI) 
Department of Real Estate 

Resolution authorizing an extension and a modification of 
an existing lease of real property at 23rd and Illinois 
Streets for the Municipal Railway. 

A portion of Lot 10 of Assessor's Block 4232, at 23 rd and 
Illinois Streets, near Pier 72. 

To provide space for the continued storage of street cars, 
materials and equipment for the Municipal Railway and 
to provide for improvements to be provided by the 
landlord and maintained by MUNI. 

Harrigan, Weidenmuller, Co. 

City and County of San Francisco. 



The leased property consists of approximately 50.000 
square feet of warehouse space and a paved lot area of 
approximately 34,000 square feet, totaling approximately 
84,000 square feet. The lease rate under this subject 
extended lease is $31,800 per month, or ap proximate ly 
$0.38 per square foot per month. 

$381,600. 



The prior lease rate was $25,520 per month, or approximately 
$0.30 per square foot per month ($306,240 annually). The 
proposed lease amendment would result in an increase in 
annual rent of $75,360 or 24.6 percent from $306,240 to 
$381,600 per year. 

Fiscal Year 1999-2000 Operating Budget of the Municipal 
Railway. 



The City is to continue to pay for the costs of all utilities 
and janitorial services. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



74 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

October 20, 1999 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



Term of Lease: 



The existing lease expired on July 1, 1999. The proposed 
extension would extend the term of the existing lease for 
three years, retroactive from July 1, 1999, to June 30, 
2002. Since the expiration of the existing lease on July 1. 
1999, MUNI has been leasing the subject property on a 
month-to-month basis at the new proposed increased 
monthly rental rate of $31,800. According to Mr. Steve 
Legnitto of the Department of Real Estate, this legislation 
to extend the lease was not submitted to the Board of 
Supervisors for approval prior to July 1, 1999, because 
negotiations with the landlord were not yet completed. 



Right of Renewal: 
Description: 



None. 

MUNI has leased the subject property at 23 rd and Illinois 
Streets, near Pier 72 since 1987. The proposed resolution 
would authorize MUNI to enter into an extension of the 
existing lease, at the existing lease rate of $0.38 per 
square foot per month over the three-year term of the 
lease renewal. MUNI uses the subject property for 
storage of street cars, materials and equipment. 

According to Mr. Legnitto. the proposed lease modification 
provides that the Landlord will install new iron fencing, 
improve area lighting, and repair and maintain the roof 
and structure of the building at no cost to the City. 



Comment: 



According to Mr. Legnitto the reason for a rental rate 
increase of 24.6 percent, which according to the 
Department of Real Estate represents fair market value, 
is that real estate prices, and lease rates, have increased 
significantly over the two years since the prior lease rate 
was set. 



Recommendation: 



Because the proposed rental rate would increase by 24.6 
percent and because such an increased rental rate has 
been paid since July 1. 1999 under a month-to-month 
lease without prior approval by the Board of Supervisors, 
approval of this proposed resolution is a policy matter for 
the Board of Supervisors. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

75 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

October 20, 1999, Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



Item 10 - File 99-1867 

Department: 

Item: 



Amount: 
Source of Funds: 

Description: 



Budget: 



Department of Public Works (DPW) 

Hearing to consider the release of reserved funds in the 
amount of $785,000 for the Japantown Peace Plaza 
Project. 

$785,000 

Funds reserved in DPWs FY 1999-2000 annual budget for 
Citywide Capital Projects. 

During the FY 1999-2000 annual budget review, the 
Finance and Labor Committee placed $2,750,00000 of 
DPWs Capital Improvement Budget for Citywide Capital 
Projects on reserve pending submission of budget details 
and identification of the specific projects to be 
implemented with these funds. DPW now requests the 
release of $785,000 of these funds to supplement the 
Phase 2 project budget for the Japantown Peace Plaza 
Project. 

The Japantown Peace Plaza is located between Post 
Street and Geary Street at the terminus of the Buchanan 
Street Pedestrian Mall. The requested funds are to 
supplement the budget for Phase 2 of the Japantown 
Peace Plaza Project, which consists of a complete 
renovation of the existing Peace Pagoda as well as the 
complete redesign and construction of a new Plaza, 
including new stone paving, a large fountain and a 
performance stage. 

Phase 1 of the project consisted of demolition of the 
existing Japanese Peace Plaza and removal of hazardous 
materials, at a total cost of $267,588. Phase 2 of the 
project is currently expected to cost $2,835,000, resulting 
in a total estimated project cost for Phase 1 and Phase 2 
of $3,102,588. Of the $2,835,000 in estimated Phase 2 
costs, $2,050,000 has previously been allocated by the 
Board of Supervisors. This request for $785,000 would 
provide the additional funds required to complete Phase 
2. Attachment I, provided by DPW, lists the total sources 
and uses for the overall project cost of $3,102,588, 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



76 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

October 20, 1999, Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

including the costs of $267,588 for Phase 1 and the 
estimated costs of $2,835,000 for Phase 2. 

According to Ms. Tina Olsen of DPW, DPW issued an 
Invitation For Bids for the construction costs of Phase 2 
but received only one bid, from Competent Builders, Inc. 
The bid amount of Competent Builders, Inc., was 
$2,789,000, which was $1,389,000, or over 99 percent 
more than the construction costs of $1,400,000 as had 
been estimated by DPW. According to Mr. Primeau, 
Director of Public Works, the additional costs are 
partially attributable to the fact that the there is 
currently more demand for construction services than 
available contractors, and that therefore the costs of 
construction are difficult to estimate. Mr. Primeau 
explains that working with the contractor, Competent 
Builders, Inc.. DPW and the contractor renegotiated a 
final contract amount of $2,400,000. Although the 
$2,400,000 contract amount is $389,000 less than the 
contractor's bid of $2,789,000, the final contract amount of 
$2,400,000 is still $1,000,000, or over 71 percent, more 
than DPWs original estimated cost of $1,400,000 for the 
construction contract. Attachment II is a memorandum 
from Ms. Shannon Maloney of DPW providing a written 
explanation why the contractor's bid was over 99 percent 
more than DPWs estimated costs and why only one 
contractor submitted a bid for a contract estimated at 
$1,400,000. Attachment II also lists the modifications 
made by the contractor to reduce the contract cost by 
$389,000. 

Attachment III, provided by DPW, lists the work to be 
performed under the construction contact. It should be 
noted that this attachment also includes the work 
performed in Phase 1, and so lists total costs of 
$2,667,588, $267,588 more than the amount of the 
$2,400,000 Phase 2 construction contract. 

Comments: 1. DPW reports that it worked with the nine members of 

a Community Task Force, as identified in Attachment II, 
to identify elements of the project that could be modified 
to reduce costs. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

77 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

October 20, 1999, Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

2. DPW anticipates that this project is expected to be 
completed in time for the Cherry Blossom Festival in 
March of 2000. 

Recommendation: Approval of the release of the requested reserved funds of 

$785,000 is a policy matter for the Board of Supervisors. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

78 



Attacnment i 





Pape 1 of 'I 
japa 


Japantown Peace Plaza Project 




Sources and Uses of Funds 




1. Sources 


Amount 


SFRA 


600,000 


General Fund - (99-00 CIP) 


350,000 


Open Space 


424,843 


ADA Improvement Funding (98-99 CIP) 


110,000 


DPT - Japantown Garage Gift 


550.000 


DPT - Garage Repair Funds 


132.745 


Community Fundraising 


150,000 


Proposed Release of Reserve 


785.000 


Total 


$3,102,588 


2. Uses 


Amount 


Demolition (Contract & Staff) 


$267,588 


A/E Fees (Demo & Project) 


160.000 


Permits 


15.000 


Construction Contract - Competent Builders, Inc 


2,400,000 


Contingency @ 5% 


120.000 


Construct Mgmt (see attached for details) 


140.000 


Subtotal 


S3.102.588 



9/28/99 



75 



Page 2 of T 



If) 








(fl 




o 




o 

































CD 




o 




re 












ra 




2 




c 




_o 


■*-< 




o 


o 


CO 


- 


'6" 


l_ 


l_ 


"oo 


Q. 


c 


re 


O 


N 


O 


re 


co 


0. 


£ 



O 


0. 


re 


Q 


CD 




0- 


"o 


_ 






Li 


5 

o 


E 


c 


B 


re 

o. 


3 


re 



= re 

o or 

x 



o o 

X 2 



§ o o o o 

^r O O Tj- CD 

2- to o_ o_ o 
^ I s -" in in cr> 
eg. ^f ■* CNJ 



in in in cd 

oo n m 



o 
o 
q 



^ £ CO <?> 



sss- 



CO CO CO CD CO 



c/3 -J 



CD 
CD 





3) 


U 




C 


U 


cT; 


LLI 


CD 


en 




Cfl 


lU 


(D 


C 


2 


2 

CD 


"cu 


U 


K 


LL 


V 


cr-, 


y_ 


a 


O 


PC 




CM 


ro 


Ll 


w 


CO 



CD -Q 
cd re 
C — I 

O) en 

c c n 



LU 



T3 w I— 



< .2 



o 
U 

c 

CD 

E 

CD 
D> 

re 
c 
re 



o 
U 



sc 



10-U-99 10:51m Froi-OPW/BOE 
City and County of San Francisco 




Willie Lewis Brown. Jr., Mayor 
Mark A. Primeau, Architect, A1A, Direcar 



4i=-==e-*5tQ Attachment II 

Page 1 of 3 

(415) 556-4021 

FAX (415) 556-45:9 

http://www.sfcpw.ccm 

Department of Public Works 

Project Management Division 

30 Van Ness Avenue. 5"* Floor 

San Francsco, CA 94102-6020 

Kathryn How. Asscant C.ry Engineer 



October 14, 1999 

To: James Edison 

From: Shannon Maloney ^J/I/v^ 

Re: Japantown Peace Plaza 

Tina Olson asked me to send you a memo to clarify the following issues. 

1 . In the current bidding climate, it is not unusual to receive only one bid on a 
given project In some cases we have received no bids at all. Recently we 
bid a project entitled "Ecker Street Alleyway Improvement" and we received 
no bids on the Project. I am managing two other recent projects that have 
received only one bid, namely "Pioneer Park" and an "As-Needed Park 
Construction Project." Contractors are very busy doing projects in the private 
sector as well as at the Airport 

2. Because we only had one bidder on this Project, George Wong, of the City 
Attorney's Office, advised us that we could negotiate with the contractor to try 
to bring the cost down. However, I should preface discussion of any 
negotiated changes with the fact that the Contractor's initial bid was probabiy 
inflated because he was the only bidder. I'm sure when he realized that there 
were no other bidders, he pumped up the price. Knowing that, we met with 
the Contractor several times and agreed upon the following. 

• We would construct the ADA access from Geary Boulevard first, so 
that subsequent work could be staged from Geary Boulevard. (This 
access had originally been an alternate bid item.) This assuaged 
some of the Contractor's concern over inadequate staging area on 
Post Street. 

• We reduced the size of the stone pavers from 4-feet square to 2-foot 
square, so that one laborer could lift the paver By reducing the size, 
we could also reduce the thickness. This resulted in both a reduction of 
labor costs and a reduction in the cost of shipping 

• We changed the waterproofing to one that is easier to apoiy cunng 
damp weather. This reduced the Contractor's concern over delays due 
to inclement weather 



•IMPROVING THE QUAUTY OF UPS in SAN RMMOSCO" We are aes-.zataa maiwcuais ccmmmea » lemmwcic, 

customer service and conunucus imgroverr.er.: :n sannerzftis wi'.ft tf)e somrr.urwy. 

Customer Serv^t 7/omwore Cjnnnuoiu tmoro*cmuu 



81 



10-14-38 10:51m FroarOPW/BOE 



415-558-4519 



Attachment II 
Page 2 of 3 



• We chose a different, less expensive, pump for the fountain. 

• We changed the grating material from bronze to stainless steel. 

• We adjusted the drainage so that the amount of concrete was slightly 
reduced. 

• We eliminated the granite nosing on the stairs and substituted it with 
contrasting concrete. 

3. We plan to award this project as soon as there is a release of the dollars on 
Reserve at the Board of Supervisors. We are aiming for "Substantial 
Completion" of Japantown Peace Piaza for the Cherry Blossom Festival in 
April of 2000. Hundreds of guests are coming from Japan for this event 

4. The following individuals were members of the Japantown Peace Plaza Task 
Force. 

• Allen M. Okamoto, Chair 

• Hisao Hiro, Kintetsu Enterprises of America 

• Tom Okazaki, President Nihonmachi Merchants Association 

• Steve Nakajo, ED Kimochi Inc. 

• Kaz Naganuma, Naganuma & Associates 

• Geri Handa, Secretary, Japantown Planning and Preservation Task Force 

• Jeff More, ED Asian American Residential Recovery Services 

• Yukio K_ Kitagawa, 1999 Cherry Blossom Festival 

• Karen Kai resigned from the Task Force 

There were other Community members who attended an occasional meeting. 

5. As I had mentioned in an earlier memo, we bid this project knowing that the 
engineer's estimate was low. Last spring, construction costs skyrocketed 
and in April I flagged this issue with Mark Pnmeau. Mark Primeau went to the 
CIAC in May with a request for additional funding. At that time, the CIAC 
decided that they would wait until DPW had a firm bid, to take any action. 

6. Last Novemeber, when we began working with the Task Force, we were 
assuming that this would be a typical DPW project. The members of the Task 
Force, however, were looking at this plaza as the centerpiece of Japantown. 
Their expectation in terms of both materials and design features was very 
high. The Task Force members felt that cut stone was the only appropriate 
paving material. Typically we would use concrete. The Task Force members 
also felt that inclusion of a water feature and permanent stage was critical. 



82 



10-14-99 10:52am Froo-OPW/BOE 41E-:5e-45l9 

Attachment II 
^aee 3 of 3 



These are not design features that we typically include in public open spaces 
built by DPW. Consequently, we did not have "comparables" for cost 
estimating. 

7. Finally, an old rule of thumb for estimating the cost of a project, is to take the 
cost of materials and double it. Sometimes labor costs go as high as twice 
the cost of materials. For Japantown, labor costs are running as much as 
four times the cost of materials. Because of the accelerated timeline of this 
project, sub-contractors are postponing work they already have scheduled 
and putting Japantown at the top of their list. Tney are willing to do this only 
at an inflated price. 

Having said all this, my mandate is to get this project under construction a.s.a.p. 
The goal is to have it substantially complete by Cherry Blossom 2000. 



83 



10/13/1599 09:55 



415-554-7900 



DPW OFFMA 



Attachment III 



O LO 





JHJ 1 


1 

o 
















drai® 


El 
















a CD J5 <d 


— 
















,0 Ei Lb °» & 


CO 


a 




_U3 
ffl 








CD h- a <d rol 

■shsSoU 


31 CD 

°l — 


> 

031 

U-i 


2 

"oo 

CD 


5 


■a 

CO 


S 

CO 




r— 


SSMsi-s 


co 


Wl-^. 


O 
03 


.2 


1 


mmei 
s/Co 
>/ork/ 

g due 
i and 
the Pi 


ral 

CD 

CD 


1/3 
ffl 

5 


cl-o 

©1 c 
CD O 


00 

CD 
00 


lo 

a 

03 


E 

o 




o 


C =» .S O l. 


o 


CO 


>Jw 


3 CD 


1/3 




o 


o ohss 

■S J hob 

~ QJ CJ ~ 

olEi w N 


CD 
> 

C 
to 

CD 

N 


Ol 

c 

CO 

2 


E 

CO 
3 
coi 
Z 


E 
E 

o 


c 
!c 

o 

o 

CO 


"C3 


CJ 

C 

"CO 

© 


C/3 
0) 

o 

o 

< 






E ; ° 3 ° 

MS 


CD 

OL 


CJ 






CO 






.£ 




ca 
















MQCDI 






5 






1 




































8) 




























o 




























o 
























c 






















o 


° L-, 






















o 


B 9 
o o 

Sq 


O 

o 


o 

o 


o 
o 


O 

O 

o 


00 

oo 
to 


o 
o 

c_ 


o 

o 

o 


o 

o 
c 


O 

c 


o 

o 
o 


o 
o 
O 


CO 

co 


c 

o 


i — i 

in 
co 

«3- 


o 


o" 

03 






o 

CM 


lO~ 

co 

CM 


C3 


lO 

CO 
CN 




ifj" 

CO 


cm" 


o 


o 


























"5 


I 








































f 



































H 




















































i 






















m 
























l~\ 
























o 






















t/J 


CO 




c 


j«: 




ci 1 °T 


a 

c 








ra-- 

CI CD 




'CI o 

uj Lb 
» CO 


ol <H 'S 

QlCLI c 

<i 1 co 


8 

TO 
C 

CO 

Q 


>"o 
|S 

s 

'.2 
"5 


> 

CO 
CL 

03 

c 


03 

C" 
CO 

55 


c 

CO 

— 
c 
3 

c 


• — 
c 

a 


■5 « 

Si 

Q)!uj 


mi 
O 


Q 




l_J 




$ 


co 








• — I ■ 1 






















! OT CO 
























1 §1 
























CDI 
























lo 



84 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

October 20, 1999 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

Item 11 -File 99-1712 

Note: This item was re-referred to the Finance and Labor Committee from the 
Board of Supervisors meeting of October 12, 1999. 



Department: 
Item: 



Amount: 
Source of Funds: 

Description: 



Administrative Services 

Resolution authorizing the Director of Administrative 
Services to execute amendments to an agreement, related 
to the Moscone Center Expansion Project, dated May 16, 
1997, increasing the amount of the agreement by 
$4,500,000, from $9,526,326.38 to $14,026,326.38. 

$4,500,000 

Previously appropriated FY 1999-2000 Hotel Tax funds in 
the Department of Administrative Services — Moscone 
Center Expansion Project budget. 

The proposed resolution would authorize the Director of 
Administrative Services to enter into two or more 
amendments to an existing contract with Gensler/Michael 
Willis & Associates/Kwan Henmi Architects for 
architectural and engineering design and related services 
in connection with the new Moscone Center Expansion 
Project in an amount not to exceed $4,500,000, increasing 
the amount of the agreement from $9,526,326,38 to 
$14,026,326.38. Section 9.118 of the City Charter 
requires that all contracts in excess of $10 million must be 
approved by the Board of Supervisors. The funds for the 
proposed modifications will come from Hotel Tax fund 
monies previously appropriated by the Board of 
Supervisors for the Moscone Center Expansion Project in 
the FY 1999-2000 budget. 

In March of 1996, San Francisco voters approved a ballot 
measure authorizing the issuance of Lease Revenue 
Bonds, in an amount not to exceed $157.5 million, for the 
development of a new 240,000 square-foot separate 
facility at 860 Howard Street to provide additional 
convention meeting and exhibit space to supplement the 
Moscone Convention Center. The existing Moscone 
Convention Center at 747 Howard Street, which was 
expanded by 300,000 square feet in 1992 and 1993, now 
encompasses a total of 600,000 square feet in convention 
meeting and exhibit space. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



85 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

October 20, 1999 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



On May 16, 1997, the Director of Administrative Services 
entered into a contract with Gensler/Michael Willis & 
Associates/Kwan Henmi Architects for architectural and 
engineering design and related services for the new 
Moscone Center Expansion Project in the amount of 
$9,526,326.38. According to Mr. Leonard Tom, Director of 
Finance for the Moscone Center Expansion Project, 
managed by the Department of Administrative Services, 
the contract was awarded under a competitive request for 
proposal process. 

According to Mr. Tom, the basic scope of the Moscone 
Center Expansion Project was enlarged in September of 
1997, necessitating the additional architectural and 
engineering design work. The net useable floor area was 
increased by 60,000 square feet, from 240,000 to 300,000 
square feet, additional land purchases were authorized, 
the project's construction budget only was increased from 
$144,000,000 to $191,000,000 and the project completion 
date was extended one year to February of 2003. The 
total estimated costs of the Moscone Center Expansion 
Project, construction, design and other costs, originally 
$195,500,000 in May 1997 and later increased to 
$244,100,000 in September 1997, will be financed from 
Lease Revenue Bond proceeds and Hotel Tax revenues. 
Attachment I, provided by the Moscone Center Expansion 
Project, details (a) all sources of funds for the Moscone 
Center Expansion Project, (b) all projected costs, and (c) 
an explanation as to why the proposed additional 
architectural and engineering design and related services, 
of up to $4,500,000, should not be obtained through a 
competitive request for proposal process. 

Mr. Tom states that additional architectural and 
engineering design and related services, of up to 
$4,500,000. which is the subject of this request, are 
necessary for the enlarged project, and that therefore the 
contract with Gensler/Michael Willis & Associates/Kwan 
Henmi Architects must be amended to reflect the 
additional required work. Attachment II, provided by the 
Moscone Center Expansion Project, details a proposed 
contract modification in the amount of $3,583,596 and the 
additional services that would be provided. Attachment 
III is a memo from Mr. Tom that details additional 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

86 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

October 20, 1999 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

anticipated contract requirements of up to 8916,404. 
Therefore, the total required contract amendments would 
not exceed $4,500,000 ($3,583,596 plus $916,404). 

Comment: As of the writing of this report, the Moscone Center 

Expansion Project staff and the Cit\- Attorney's Office are 
reviewing the eligibility status of Gensler/Michael Willis 
& Associate s/Kw an Henmi Architects under Chapter 12D 
of the Administrative Code (MinorityAYomen/Local 
Business Utilization). 

Recommendation: The proposed resolution is a policy matter for the Board of 

Supervisors. 






BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

87 



09-'30'99 THl 16:06 F.*i 415 97S 5913 



MOSCONE EIP PROJN PROJ 



Attachment I 



^oc: 



City and County of San Francisco 




Moscone Center Expansion Project 

Willie Lewis Brown, Jr., Mayor 

Mark Primeau, Director of Public Works 

Ray Fong, Project Manager 



MEMORANDUM 

DT: Sept. 30, 1999 

TO: James Edison, Budget Analyst 

FM: Leonard Tom^ 

RE: Moscone Expansion Project - Follow Up Responses 

Per your request, following is a comparison of the hard and soft costs for construction of the 
Moscone Center Expansion Project between May 1997 (start of A&E contract) and current 

Category 

Building Demolition/Construction Contracts /FF&£ 

Construction Contingency 

Offsite Infrastructure 

Architecture/Construction Management 

Consultants 

City Departments, Permits, Fees, Art Projects 

Total 

FUNDING SOURCES 



May 1997 


Current 


S144.0miliion 


SI 91.0 million 


S 14.4 million 


S 12.8 million 


S 3.4 million 


S 2.8 million 


S 22.2 million 


S 26.3 million 


S 1 .2 million 


S 0." million 


S 10.3 million 


S 11.1 million 


SI 95. 5 million 


S244.7 million 



Revenue Bonds (available for construction) 
Hotel Tax Revenue (post 8/96) 
Convention Facilities Fund Balance 

Total 



SI 15.0 million 
S 67.0 million 
S 13.5 million 

S 195.5 million 



SI 15.0 million 
S 81.3 million 
S 48.4 million 

S244.7 million 



In response to your question why we are not putting this additional work out to competitive 
bidding, the majority of our request is for work (construction administration) that was always 
contemplated in the architect's basic responsibility to take a project from preliminary design to 
final completion. We are supplementing the original certified value to bring on that phase of th: 
work at this time. It would not be time efficient or cost effective to stop work and solicit 
proposals from new architectural teams to modify the building design. Professional liability 
requirements would not allow the consecutive mixture of different teams on the same project. 



Cc: 



Jack Moerschbaecher 
RF/JO/BH 



Ltom/MCEP Accountine/AE Board Resolution 



99 Grove Street #204 San Francisco, CA 94102 - Telephone (415) 978-5901 rax (415) 97S-5913 



S8 



Art: a crimen - . 
?a?e 1 of 2 



ATTACHMENT A 



Adciirional Services 

Architect shall provide additional services for the construction administration phase of 
the project. Tne construction adrninistrarion phase work shall be performed in 
accordance with the applicable provisions set forth in the Agreement, dated May 16. 
1997. This work includes, but is not limited to, assistance during contract bidding and 
award, review of construcaon issues arising during performance of the construction 
contracts, responding to all information requests made by the general contractors), 
review and approval of all shop drawings and all other submittals prepared by the senerai 
contractor(s). Additional cost of this work is not to exceed S3.33 1.943.00 without 
specific written amendment to this contract executed by the City. Tne estimated time 
frame for this work is aDproximateiy three and a half years, from September 1999 
through February 2003. 

Tne Architect shall provide additional air quality research to ensure proper design of 
internal ventilation systems serving the loading areas in the basement of the new 
building. Total cost of this research is not to exceed Sl.653.00 without specific written 
authorization by the City. 

Tne Architect shall reimburse the City, with interest, for the advanced payment for 
project insurance premiums in the amount of S250.000.00 . Tnis payment was made 
because the City required a project specific insurance policy for the project, which 
entailed a lump sum payment for the premiums by the Architect For normal insurance 
the Architect would have paid annual premiums for the life of the project. 



89 



1 -' 1 ■' 9 9 FRI 03:33 F.U 415 978 5913 



moscone eip projn proj Attachment II 
Page 2 of 2 



@oo: 



Mcscone Center Expansion Proiect 

A&E Construction Administration Cost Projection 

Gensier/Micnael Willis/Kwan Henmi Joint Venture 



9,30/99 



Position 


r i E 


Hours/Mo. 




silling 
Rates 


Cc 


:st/Month 


Project Director 
Senior Arcnitect(s) 
Project Administrator 
Subconsultants 


0.5 

1.5 

1.0 

as needed 


55 

170 
135 


S 
S 
S 

; 


150 

1C5 

57 

1C5 


S 

s 
s 
s 


12.50C 
25.775 
11,290 

14.175 






Total fees/ month 


s 


65.940 



ReimoursaDies (ave. 



8.103 



Contraction Admin. 
period to last 45 months 
(10/S9-5/03) 



Monthly Average Cos; S 74.043 

X n- months 45 

Budgeted Expense S 2.331,944 



Itsm/mosocne 2/A&E ConL-acr. Aam. 



90 




mj/M/M_IP 14:27 FAI 413 975 5913 MOSCOW EIP PROJN PROJ Attachment TIT £)0C2 

City and County of San Francisco Moscone Center Expansion Project 

; r^coi7£js v Willie Lewis Brown, Jr., Mayor 

Mark Primeau, Director of Public Works 
Ray Fong, Project Manager 

MEMORANDUM 

DT: Sept. 30, 1999 

TO: James Edison 

FM: Leonard Tom ^' 

RE: File 991712 - MCEP Contract Mod. - Additional Modification Requests 

The Moscone Expansion Project has already come to agreement on S3,583,596 worth of contract 
modifications with the joint venture. Approximately S3 million of that amount is for the 
construction adniinistration phase of work that was originally anticipated, but not certified at the 
start of the contract work. 

Following is a list of contract modification requests for additional services, which are currently 
being negotiated between the City and the joint venture and we expect to certify in the very near 
future. We are requesting the authority to make these changes at this time to reduce the need to 
go back repeatedly to the Board for an item by item approval. 

Additional seismic testing of structural joints SI 14.5 K 

Electrical/life safety commissioning S101.9K 

Friction dampers study/design 5146.4 K 

Basement cafeteria revisions S 11.5K 

Building HVAC commissioning S127.2K 

Additional civil services S 39.1 K 

Additional cooling tower enclosure effort S 10.7 K 

Interior Art Project additional work S 78.4 K 

Exterior Art Project additional work S125.2K 

Total Additional Requests S754.9 K 



We are proposing an additional reserve of 5161,504 (to round our current request to the Board to 
54,500,000) for future consultation on furnishings, fixtures and equipment (FF&.E), which will 
need to be coordinated with design to make the new building operational. This reserve 
represents one percent of the contract value and is conservative, given the size and complexity of 
the project 

Please call me at 978-5905 with any other questions you might have. 

Cc: RF/JO 

Jack Moerschbaecher 

Ltom/MCEP Accounring/AE Board Resolution 



99 Grove Street #204 San Francisco, CA 94102 ~ Telephone (415) 978-5901 Fax (415) 978-5913 

91 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

October 20, 1999 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

Item 12 -File 99-1646 



Item: 



Description: 



Resolution imposing Interim Zoning Controls for a period 
of eight months to (a) add live/work units to the definition 
of residential use in Article 8, Section 890.88 of the 
Planning Code; (b) to delete the exemption from height 
limits for live/work units set forth in Planning Code 
Section 260(b) (2) (0); (c) to delete live/work units from the 
list of other uses set forth in Planning Code Section 227(p) 
and 227(q); and (d) include live/work units in the list of 
dwellings set forth in Planning Code Section 215. 

Currently San Francisco Planning Code Section 102.13 
defines a live/work unit as "a structure or portion of a 
structure combining a residential living space for a group 
of persons including not more than four adults with an 
integrated work space principally used by one or more of 
the residents." 



The proposed resolution would impose Interim Zoning 
Controls for a period of eight months to add live/work 
developments to the definition of residential use in Article 
8, Section 890.88 of the Planning Code. The proposed 
resolution would therefore require live/work 
developments to be subject to all of the zoning and 
permitting rules under the Planning Code which are 
currently applicable only to residential developments. The 
proposed resolution would also make other deletions and 
additions to the Planning Code to reflect the designation 
of live/work units as residential units. 



Comments: 



Currently live/work developments in the South of Market 
mixed-use districts are exempted from the applicable 
height limits in each district and are allowed to build five 
feet above such height limits. The proposed resolution 
would delete the exemption from height limits for 
live/work units in the South of Market Area as set forth in 
Planning Code Section 260(b)(2)(0). Therefore, live/work 
units could no longer be built five feet above applicable 
height limits. 

1. Mr. Amit Ghosh of the Planning Department reports 
that as of September 30, 1999, there were 2,176 planned 
live/work units in San Francisco which were pending 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



92 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

October 20, 1999 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



Planning Department approval. Mr. Ghosh advises that 
715 of the 2,176 pending live/work units are located in 
areas which are designated "Service Light Industrial" 
where, if the proposed resolution were to take effect, their 
construction would no longer be permitted. If such units 
were not built, the City would therefore not receive the 
incremental Property Tax revenue which would be 
realized as a result of those developments, unless 
alternative developments were built instead. 

2. According to Mr. Ghosh, 919 of the 2,176 live/work 
units which have not yet received Planning Department 
approval are located in zoning districts where, if the 
proposed resolution were approved, they would become 
subject to conditional use authorization by the Planning 
Commission. Mr. Ghosh advises that conditional use 
authorization requires that certain conditions be met 
before a development is approved by the Planning 
Commission. According to Mr. Ghosh, the Planning 
Department would fully recover, through fees charged to 
developers, all increased administrative costs associated 
with live/work units which would be subject to conditional 
authorization. 

Live/work developments which are located in areas 
where, under the proposed resolution, would require 
conditional use authorization and are larger than 10 units 
would become subject to the City's affordable housing 
requirement that up to 10 percent of all such units be 
made available at below market rates for persons with 
low to moderate incomes. Currently, live/work units are 
not subject to this affordable housing requirement. 
According to Mr. Ghosh, the number of units, per unit 
sale price, and resident income requirements for 
affordable housing units are determined on a case-by-case 
basis by the Planning Commission. 

Mr. Ghosh reports that the exact number of the 919 
live/work units which are located in developments of 10 
units or more, and therefore would be subject to the 
affordable housing requirement, had not been determined 
as of the writing of this report but will be presented at the 
October 20, 1999 Finance and Labor Committee meeting. 
If it is assumed that all 919 of the live/work units were 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

93 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

October 20, 1999 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



subject to the affordable housing requirement, a 
maximum of 91 of the 919 units (up to 10 percent) would 
be required to be designated as affordable housing units. 

3. As noted above, under the proposed resolution, of the 
2,176 pending live/work units, the construction of the 715 
units would no longer be permitted and the construction 
of the 919 units would be permitted subject to conditional 
use approval by the Planning Commission. Furthermore, 
Mr. Ghosh reports that an additional 24 units would be 
subject to conditional use approval only if they were 
occupied by artists. If such units were not occupied by 
artists, they could not be constructed. Mr. Ghosh advises 
that, therefore, construction of the remaining 518 units 
(2,176 minus 715 minus 919 minus 24) would be 
permitted. According to Mr. Ghosh, however, under the 
proposed resolution, the developers of the 518 units may 
be required to redesign building plans in order to meet 
residential design standards which are contained in the 
Planning Code. Mr. Ghosh reports the 919 units which 
would be subject to conditional used approval would also 
be required to meet residential design standards. 

4. Currently, all projects which increase the habitable 
floor area for residential occupancies or increase the floor 
area for commercial occupancies in San Francisco are 
assessed and required to pay a State-mandated School 
Facility Impact Fee to the San Francisco Unified School 
District (SFUSD) before a building permit can be issued. 
The fee is based upon the square footage of the 
development and is applied according to a fee schedule 
based on the type of proposed projects. Currently, such 
residential developments are charged a rate of $1.72 per 
square foot and light industrial developments are charged 
$0.22 per square foot. 

According to Mr. Michael Terry of the SFUSD, in the case 
of live/work units, the SFUSD is responsible for 
determining the amount of the School Facility Impact Fee 
to be charged. Mr. Terry advises that the SFUSD 
currently applies both the residential and light industrial 
fee rates to live/work units depending on the amount 
square footage dedicated to each type of use (i.e., 
residential or light industrial). 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

94 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

October 20, 1999 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



In other words, the SFUSD determines what portion of 
the square footage in each live/work unit is deemed to be 
residential and applies the residential rate of $1.72 per 
square foot, and what portion is light industrial and 
applies the light industrial rate of $0.22 per square foot to 
establish a School Facility Impact Fee. The SFUSD 
reports that the evaluation of the ratio of residential to 
commercial space in each live/work unit is done on a case 
by case basis, based on the building plan documents for 
each development. 

Under the proposed resolution, all live/work developments 
would be designated as residential units under the 
Planning Code. If the SFUSD were to make a policy 
decision to apply the higher residential rate of $1.72 per 
square foot to the entire square footage of all future 
live/work developments, the SFUSD would realize some 
amount of increased revenues from the School Facility 
Impact Fee. 

At the same time, under the proposed resolution some 
amount of revenues to the SFUSD from the School 
Facility Impact Fee would decrease because, as noted in 
Comment #1, the proposed resolution would have the 
effect of prohibiting development of 715 of the 2,176 
pending live/work units which would therefore not be 
assessed the School Facilities Impact Fee, unless 
alternative developments were built instead. 

In order to estimate the potential net revenue impacts to 
the SFUSD, the Budget Analyst requested data from the 
SFUSD to determine the average School Facilities Impact 
Fee applied to recent live/work developments. However 
such data had not been provided by the SFUSD as of the 
writing of this report. 

Fiscal Impact 

Summary: Of the 2,176 pending live/work units, 715 are located in 

areas which are designated "Service Light Industrial" 
where, if the proposed resolution were to take effect, their 
construction would no longer be permitted. If such units 
were not built, the City would therefore not receive the 
incremental Property Tax revenue which would be 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

95 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

October 20, 1999 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



Recommendation: 



realized as a result of those developments, 
alternative developments were built instead. 



unless 



The SFUSD would experience some amount of increased 
revenues from the School Facility Impact Fee if the 
SFUSD were to make a policy decision to apply the higher 
residential rate to the entire square footage of all future 
live/work developments in place of the current system of 
calculating the fee by determining the portion of the 
square footage in each live/work unit deemed to be 
residential ($1.72 per square foot) and light industrial 
($0.22 per square foot). 

At the same time, some amount of revenues to the SFUSD 
from the School Facility Impact Fee would decrease 
because the proposed resolution would have the effect of 
prohibiting development of 715 of the 2,176 pending 
live/work units which would therefore not be assessed the 
School Facilities Impact Fee, unless alternative 
developments were built instead. 

The proposed resolution is a policy matter for the Board of 
Supervisors. 




[arvey M. Rose 



cc: Supervisor Yee 

Supervisor Bierman 
President Ammiano 
Supervisor Becerril 
Supervisor Brown 
Supervisor Katz 
Supervisor Kaufman 
Supervisor Leno 
Supervisor Newsom 



Supervisor Teng 
Supervisor Yaki 
Clerk of the Board 
Controller 
Legislative Analyst 
Matthew Hymel 
Stephen Kawa 
Ted Lakey 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



96 




l*n h 



City and County of San Francisco 

Meeting Minutes 

Finance and Labor Committee 

Members: Supervisors Leland Yee, Sue Bierman and Tom Ammiano 
Clerk: Mary Red 



City Hall 

1 Dr. Carlton B. 

Goodlett Place 

San Francisco, CA 

94102-4689 



Wednesday, October 27, 1999 



10:00 AM 

Regular Meeting 



City Hall, Room 263 



Members Present: Leland Y. Yee, Tom Ammiano. 
Members Absent: Sue Bierman. 



Meeting Convened 



The meeting convened at J 0:00 a.m. 

991912 [Government Funding, capital improvements at the San Francisco Zoo) 

Ordinance appropriating $16,898,894 of Zoo Facilities Bond Proceeds for capital improvements, repair and 
replacement projects, and Bond issuance costs associated with the Zoo Master Plan Phase II, through the 
Department of Public Works, for fiscal year 1999-2000. (Controller) 

(Companion measure to File 991913.) 

10/6/99, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance and Labor Committee. 

Heard in Committee. Speakers: Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst: David Anderson, Director, S.F. Zoo; 

Supervisor Yee. Opposed: David Frost; Emery Kalman. Amended to place $200,000 on reserve and to 

request the Zoological Society to provide the Board of Supervisors with an annual report on expenditures of 

construction management and program management funds, commencing in December of 2000. New title. 

AMENDED. 

Ordinance appropriating $16,898,894 of Zoo Facilities Bond Proceeds for capital improvements, repair and 

replacement projects, and Bond issuance costs associated with the Zoo Master Plan Phase II, through the 

Department of Public Works, for fiscal year 1999-2000; placing $200,000 on reserve; and requesting the 

Zoological Society to make an annual report to the Board of Supervisors, commencing December of 2000. 

(Controller) 



(Companion measure to File 991913.) 

RECOMMENDED AS AMENDED by the following vote: 

Ayes: 2 - Yee, Ammiano 
Absent: 1 - Bierman 



DOCUMENTS DEPT. 

OCT 2 9 1999 

SAN FRANCISCO 
PUBLIC LIBRARY 



City and County of San Francisco 



Printed at 4:46 PM on 1<V2'V9 



Finance and Labor Committee 



Meeting Minuter 



October 27, 1999 



991913 [Authorizing the Director of Public Works to contract with the S.F. Zoological Society to perform 
construction work at the Zoo, without advertising for competitive bids, said contract not to exceed 
$913,500.] 

Ordinance authorizing the Director of Public Works to contract with San Francisco Zoological Society for Zoo 
staff to perform all necessary construction work related to the repair and replacement of Zoo facilities in 
connection with the San Francisco Zoo Phase II Master Plan Project, an exception to competitive bid 
requirements. (Department of Public Works) 

(Companion measure to File 991912.) 

10/6/99, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED lo Finance and Labor Committee 

Heard in Committee. Speakers: Harvey Rose. Budget Anal wt. David Anderson, Director. S.F. Zoo; 

Supervisor Yee. Opposed: David Frost; Emery Kalman 

RECOMMENDED by the following vote: 

Ayes: 2 - Yee. Ammiano 

Absent: 1 - Bierman 



991537 (Appropriation, S.F. Unified School District] 

Ordinance appropriating $60,713,766, San Francisco Unified School District, of school Bond proceeds for 

capital improvement projects on various school facilities, cost of issuance, and other related costs for fiscal 

year 1999-2000. (Controller) 

8/4/99, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED lo Finance and I tbof Com iittce 

9/15/99, CONTINUED. Heard in Committee Speaker! Harvey Rote, Budget Analyst; Tin ' nificd School District. 

Supervisor Yee. Supervisor Ammiano; I uurj. < Ipshal. Mayors < HTice; I d Harrington, Controller Continued lo September 29, 1999 

9/29/99, CONTINUED TO CALL OF THE CHAR 

Continued to November .?. / 999. 

CONTINUED by the following vote: 

Ayes: 2 - Yee, Ammiano 

Absent: 1 - Bierman 



991870 (Approving a license permitting the FBI to continue to rent space in the Central Radio Station for 
operation of communication equipment! 

Resolution authorizing and approving a telecommunications license renewal for a one rack transmitter at the 
Central Radio Station and monopole antennae space at Christmas Tree Point with the United States 
Department of Justice. (Real Estate Department) 
9/30/99, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance and Labor Committee 

Heard in Committee. Speakers: Harvey Rose. Budget Analyst: Tony DeLucchi. Real Estate Department 
RECOMMENDED by the following \ote: 

Ayes: 2 - Yee, Ammiano 

Absent: 1 - Bierman 



City and County of San Francisco 



Printed at 4:4' PM on 1 07-/99 



Finance and Labor Committee 



Meeting Minutes 



October 27, 1999 



991881 [Public Financing of Candidate Campaigns and Other Campaign Reform Measures] 
Supervisors Ammiano, Bierman 

Resolution urging the San Francisco Ethics Commission to study and hold public hearings on public financing 
of candidate campaigns for local elective office and other measures designed to curb the influence of special- 
interest contributions on public policy and administration; to consider specific components of a public 
financing measure; to consider other campaign finance reforms designed to reduce the influence of campaign 
contributions on the design and'or award of public contracts; to consider expanded disclosure requirements for 
candidate, independent expenditure, and non-candidate controlled committees; to submit such proposed 
campaign reform measures as it deems necessary to the voters for their consideration at the March 2000 
primary election; and to study and recommend to the Board of Supervisors methods by which the City and 
County can provide candidates for public office with cost-effective, direct access to voters. 
10/4/99, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance and Labor Committee. 

Heard in Committee. Speakers: Supervisor Ammiano; Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst; Ginny Vida, Executive 
Director, Ethics Commission. In Support: Charles Marsteller, S.F. Common Cause; Holly Thier, League of 
Women Voters. 
RECOMMENDED by the following vote: 

Ayes: 2 - Yee, Ammiano 

Absent: 1 - Bierman 



991973 [Mortgage Credit Certificate Program Allocation Not to Exceed S20.000.0001 
Supervisor Brown 

Resolution authorizing an application to the California Debt Limit Allocation Committee to permit the 

issuance of mortgage credit certificates. 

10/18/99, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance and Labor Committee. With request it be considered at the October 27, 1999 meeting. 

Heard in Committee. Speakers: Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst; Maggie Davis-Badger, Mayor's Office of 

Housing. Amended on page 2, line 8 to substitute "90,657,075" for "$71,927,430". Same title. 

AMENDED. 

RECOMMENDED AS AMENDED by the following vote: 

Ayes: 2 - Yee, Ammiano 
Absent: 1 - Bierman 



991941 [Fire Department Overtime Expenditures] 
Supervisor Yee 

Hearing to consider the Fire Department overtime expenditures. 
10/12/99, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance and Labor Committee. 
Continued to November 10, 1999. 
CONTINUED by the following vote: 

Ayes: 2 - Yee, Ammiano 

Absent: 1 - Bierman 



City and County of San Francisco 



Primed at 4:47 PM on I0A7/99 



Finance and Labor Committee Meeting Minute* October 2", 1999 



990652 |Paramedic Services] 

Supervisors Yee, Newsom 

Hearing to consider the cost of transferring paramedic services from the Health Department to the Fire 

Department. 

4/5/99, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED lo Finance and Labor Committee 

10/6/99. CONTINUED TO CALL OF Till (HAIR 

Continued to November 10. 1999 
CONTINUED by the follow ing vote: 

Ayes: 2 - Yee. Ammiano 
Absent: 1 - Bierman 



ADJOURNMENT 

The meeting adjourned at HI J-/ p m 



City and County of San Francisco 4 Printed at 4:4 7 PM on 10/27/19 



Public Library,Gov't Info. Ctr., 5 th Fir. 



Attn: Susan Horn 
f 

Z CITY AND COUNTY 



/a l/tf 




DOCUMENTS DEP" 
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OCT 2 7 1999 



r, 

* BUDGET ANALYST SAN FRANCISCO 

^•s^ 1390 Market Street, Suite 1025, San Francisco, CA 94102 (415) 554-7642 P UBLIC LIBRARY 

K 3 FAX (415) 252-0461 

October 22, 1999 
TO: ^Finance and Labor Committee 

FROM: ^Budget Analyst 

SUBJECT: October 27, 1999 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 
Items 1 and 2 - Files 99-1912 and 99-1913 

Departments: Department of Public Works (DPW) 

Recreation and Parks (Rec/Park) 
San Francisco Zoological Society (SFZS) 

Items: File No. 99-1912 

Ordinance appropriating $16,898,894 of Zoo Facilities 
Bond proceeds for capital improvements, repair and 
replacement projects, and bond issuance costs associated 
with the Zoo Master Plan Phase II. 

File No. 99-1913 

Ordinance authorizing the Director of Public Works to 
contract with the San Francisco Zoological Society in the 
amount of $913,500 of the $16,898,894 supplemental 
appropriation request (File No. 99-1912) for 1) 12 Zoo 
maintenance positions, including eight new positions (6.5 
FTEs) and four existing positions (2.0 FTEs) or a total of 
8.5 FTEs ($450,000), 2) materials and supplies 
($450,000), and 3) fees and permits ($13,500), to perform 
all necessary construction work related to the "Repair and 

» Replacement" project, in connection with the San 

Francisco Zoo Phase II Master Plan. The 12 positions 
would perform such "Repair and Replacement" work 
under the Zoo's Maintenance Department instead of a 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

October 27, 1999 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



construction contract being awarded under a competitive 
bid. Attachment I, provided by the Zoo, shows the 
classifications of the four existing and eight new positions 
(total of 8.5 FTEs) and the annual salaries and fringe 
benefit costs to perform the "Repair and Replacement" 
work. The total salary cost of these positions for the 
period of December 1999 through December 2000, under 
this request is $450,000. Attachments II and III are 
memoranda from the Director of Public Works and the 
Zoo Director respectively, explaining the rationale for 
having Zoo employees perform the "Repair and 
Replacement Work" rather than awarding such work 
through a competitive bid to a construction contractor. As 
stated by the Zoo Director in Attachment III, the new 
maintenance positions would become permanent positions 
in the Zoological Society's Maintenance Department to 
provide ongoing general support and maintenance upon 
completion of Phase II Bond revenues, at which time the 
positions would be funded by Zoological Society revenues. 

Approximately $107,316 of the proposed $450,000 in bond 
fund monies being requested for Zoo maintenance staff 
would be allocated for paying existing Zoo staff salaries 
and fringe benefits. The $107,316 in salary and fringe 
benefit costs are now being paid with Zoological Society 
revenues, according to Mr. John Mann, Deputy Director of 
the San Francisco Zoological Society. 

The Management Agreement provides that the City pay 
the Zoological Society a management fee of $4,000,500. 
annually. The amount is adjusted on a predetermined 
formula every five years when the Management 
Agreement is extended. Such funding is to be used for Zoo 
expenses and cannot be reduced by the City, under the 
Management Agreement. Therefore, the Zoological 
Society would reallocate the $107,316 for other 
expenditures since the cost of the existing positions would 
now be picked up by the proposed Bond Funds. 



Amount: 



$16,898,894 



Source of Funds: 



1997 Zoo Facilities Bonds, Series 1999C. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

2 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

October 27, 1999 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



Public Library, Gov't Information Ctr.. 5 th Fir. 
Attn: Susan Horn, Dept. 41 



Description: 



DOCUMENTS DEPT. 

OCT 2 7 1999 

SAN FRANCISCO 
PUBLIC LIBRARY 



1-.41 R CVD 



File No. 99-1912 

According to Mr. John Mann, Deputy Director of the San 
Francisco Zoological Society, Phase I of the San Francisco 
Zoo Master Plan consisted of capital improvement 
projects in the total amount of $6,803,246, all of which 
have been completed. Mr. Mann states the Phase I capital 
improvement projects were entirely funded through 
private donations raised by the Zoological Societ}'. 
Attachment IV, provided by the Zoo, contains a 
description and actual cost of the projects completed 
under Phase I of the Zoo Master Plan. 

In June of 1997, the City's electorate approved 
Proposition C, which provided that the City would incur a 
total of $48 million in General Obligation Bonded 
indebtedness for the acquisition, construction, and/or 
reconstruction of the San Francisco Zoo facilities and 
properties. In turn, the San Francisco Zoological Society 
pledged to raise a minimum of $25 million in private 
donations, bringing the total to a minimum of $73 million 
to renovate the Zoo. The $73 million minimum in funding, 
known as Phase II of the San Francisco Zoo Master Plan, 
is to be used to renovate and develop the western portion 
of the Zoo and includes various new exhibit areas, 
improvements and expansion of the Children's Zoo, 
improvements to other existing exhibits, and the 
construction of a new entryway, parking lot, and support 
buildings. Attachment V, provided by the Zoo, contains: a) 
summary project descriptions, b) total estimated costs, c) 
funding sources, d) amounts expended to date, e) the 
dates when work commenced, f) the estimated completion 
dates, and g) the current status of each individual Phase 
II capital improvement project. No expenditures have 
been obligated from the requested $16,898,894, according 
to Mr. Mann. Attachment V contains a budget of 
$76,390,000, which is $3,390,000 in excess of the 
$73,000,000 minimum funding to be expended in Phase 
II. The Zoological Society intends to raise an additional 
$3,390,000, or a total of $28,390,000 in private donations, 
to enhance Phase II capital projects. 

In June of 1999, the Board of Supervisors authorized the 
first sale of the $48 million 1997 Zoo Facilities Bonds, 
Series 1999C, in the amount of $16,845,000 to fund a 
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 
3 



REVISED 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

October 27, 1999 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



October 
Files 99- 



25, 



1999 
r99TL913 



portion of Phase II of the Zoo Master Plan. This proposed 
ordinance would appropriate $16,898,894, which, 
according to Ms. Laura Bordelon of the Mayor's Office of 
Public Finance, is the total amount of the proceeds from 
the first bond sale of the 1997 Zoo Facilities Bonds, Series 
1999C. This supplemental appropriation is to request 
those proceeds for the purpose of constructing this first 
increment of capital improvement projects under Phase II 
of the Zoo Master Plan using City bond fund monies, 1 and 
for funding the bond issuance costs. 

A summary budget of this request for funds in the amount 
of $16,898,894 is shown in the following table: 



Summary Appropriation Request by Capital Project 



Project Description 


Design 


Fees& 
Permits 


Constr. 
Mgmt. 


Construc- 
tion 


Other 


Bond 
Issuance 


Program 
Mgmt. 


Total 


Education Facility 


246,741 


34.155 


160.301 


2.277,000 






50.000 


S2.768.197 


Animal Resource Center 


3.971 


31.122 


171.781 


2.074.800 






41.971 


2.323.645 


Zoo Support Facilities 


270,107 


38.025 


169.301 


2.535.000 






55.413 


3.067.846 


Administration Facilities 


116.996 


14.250 


85.891 


950.000 






21,469 


1.188.606 


Children's Zoo 1 


3.971 


29.955 


209.735 


1.997,000 






41.216 


2.281.877 


Quarantine & Holding 


3,971 


32.670 


179.293 


2.178.000 






44.036 


2.437.970 


Public Art Program 


116.699 






462.501 


220.800 






800.000 


Repair & Replacement 





13.500 




900.000 






16.804 


930.304 


Entry & Zoo Street I 


7,942 






940.000 






17.437 


965.379 


Madagascar 


7,942 












146 


8.088 


Africa! 


7.942 












146 


8.088 


Bond Account 












53.471 




53.471 


Citv Attorney 












30.000 


Public Finance 










16.700 




16.700 


Controller 












5.000 




5.000 


Other Costs oflssuance 












13.723 




13.723 


Total 


786.282 


193.677 


976.302 


14.314.301 


220.800 I 118.894 


288.637 


16.898.894 



The supporting documentation to the proposed ordinance 
in the Board of Supervisors file contains a description and 
a budget for each of the capital improvement projects that 
would be funded by this proposed S16.898.894 
supplemental appropriation. 



1 As shown in Attachment V, the Zoological Society has initiated several of the Phase II projects 
using donated funds. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

4 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

October 27, 1999 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

Description: File No. 99-1912 



According to Mr. John Mann, Deputy Director of the San 
Francisco Zoological Society, Phase I of the San Francisco 
Zoo Master Plan consisted of capital improvement 
projects in the total amount of $6,803,246, all of which 
have been completed. Mr. Mann states the Phase I capital 
improvement projects were entirely funded through 
private donations raised by the Zoological Society. 
Attachment D7, provided b3 r the Zoo, contains a 
description and actual cost of the projects completed 
under Phase I of the Zoo Master Plan. 

In June of 1997, the City's electorate approved 
Proposition C, which provided that the Citj r would incur a 
total of $48 million in General Obligation Bonded 
indebtedness for the acquisition, construction, and/or 
reconstruction of the San Francisco Zoo facilities and 
properties. In turn, the San Francisco Zoological Society 
pledged to raise a minimum of $25 million in private 
donations, bringing the total to a minimum of $73 million 
to renovate the Zoo. The $73 million minimum in funding, 
known as Phase II of the San Francisco Zoo Master Plan, 
is to be used to renovate and develop the western portion 
of the Zoo and includes various new exhibit areas, 
improvements and expansion of the Children's Zoo, 
improvements to other existing exhibits, and the 
construction of a new entryway, parking lot, and support 
buildings. Attachment V, provided by the Zoo, contains: a) 
summary project descriptions, b) total estimated costs, c) 
funding sources, d) amounts expended to date, e) the 
dates when work commenced, f) the estimated completion 
dates, and g) the current status of each individual Phase 
II capital improvement project. No expenditures have 
been obligated from the requested $16,898,894, according 
to Mr. Mann. Attachment V contains a budget of 
$76,390,000, which is $3,390,000 in excess of the 
$73,000,000 minimum funding to be expended in Phase 
II. The Zoological Society intends to raise an additional 
$3,390,000, or a total of $28,390,000 in private donations, 
to enhance Phase II capital projects. 

In June of 1999, the Board of Supervisors authorized the 
first sale of the $48 million 1997 Zoo Facilities Bonds, 
Series 1999C, in the amount of $16,845,000 to fund a 
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 
3 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

October 27, 1999 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



portion of Phase II of the Zoo Master Plan. This proposed 
ordinance would appropriate $16,898,894, which, 
according to Ms. Laura Opsahl-Bordelon of the Mayor's 
Office of Public Finance and Economic Development, is 
the total amount of the proceeds from the first bond sale 
of the 1997 Zoo Facilities Bonds, Series 1999C. This 
supplemental appropriation is to request those proceeds 
for the purpose of constructing this first increment of 
capital improvement projects under Phase II of the Zoo 
Master Plan using City bond fund monies, 1 and for 
funding the bond issuance costs. 

A summary budget of this request for funds in the amount 
of $16,898,894 is shown in the following table: 



Summary Appropriation Request bv Capital Project 



Project Description 


Design 


Fees& 
Permits 


Constr. 
Mgmt. 


Construc- 
tion 


Other 


Bond 
Issuance 


Program 
Mgmt. 


Total 


Education Facility 


246.741 


34,155 


160.301 


2.277.000 






50.000 


S2.768.197 


Animal Resource Center 


3.971 


31.122 


171.781 


2.074.800 






41.971 


2.323.645 


Zoo Support Facilities 


270.107 


38.025 


169.301 


2.535.000 






55.413 


3.067.846 


Administration Facilities 


116.996 


14.250 


85.891 


950.000 






21.469 


1.188.606 


Children's Zoo 1 


3.971 


29,955 


209,735 


1.997.000 






41.216 


2.281.877 


Quarantine & Holding 


3.971 


32.670 


179.293 


2.178.000 






44.036 


2.437.970 


Public Art Proeram 


116.699 






462.501 


220.800 




800.000 


Repair & Replacement 





13.500 




900.000 






16.804 


930.304 


Entrv & Zoo Street I 


7.942 






940.000 






17.437 


965.379 


Madaeascar 


7.942 












146 


8,088 


Africa! 


7.942 










146 


S.08C 


Bond Account 












33.300 I 


33.300 


Citv Attorney 












30.000 1 


30.000 


Public Finance 












16.700 ! 


16.700 


Controller 








5.000 1 


5.000 


Other Costs 












33,894 




33.894 


1 Total 


786.282 


193.677 


976.302 


14.314.301 


220.800 1 US. 894 


288.637 


16.898.894 



The supporting documentation to the proposed ordinance 
in the Board of Supervisors file contains a description and 
a budget for each of the capital improvement projects that 
would be funded by this proposed $16,898,894 
supplemental appropriation. 



1 As shown in Attachment V, the Zoological Society has initiated several of the Phase II projects 
using donated funds. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

4 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

October 27, 1999 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



Regarding the anticipated $25 million in private 
donations to be raised by the Zoological Society by 
December 31, 2000, to fund a portion of the $73 million 
minimum in Phase II costs, based on documentation 
provided by the Zoo, as of June 30, 1999, the Zoological 
Society had received actual donations of $9,380,309, and 
had received written pledges for donations totaling 
$4,794,102, or a total of $14,174,411, out of the of the $25 
million in donations the Zoological Society has committed 
to raise. Attachment VI is a statement from the Zoo 
Director reporting that the Zoological Society, as of 
October 20, 1999, has received a total of $18,286,327 in 
Phase II cash and pledged donations and that the 
Zoological Society expects to raise the balance of the 
entire $25 million, in cash and pledges, by December 31, 
2000. The Zoological Society expects to raise any 
additional Phase II funds, including the $3,390,000 
previously cited, prior to the completion of Phase II, 
currently scheduled for December 31, 2004. 

File No. 99-1913 

Section 2 of the proposed ordinance provides that the 
Board of Supervisors: 

"A) Waives the competitive bidding and public contracting 
requirements of the Administrative Code Section 6.05- 
6.07, 6.09, and 6.1 for the purposes stated herein; and 

B) Authorizes the San Francisco Zoo, Department of 
Public Works, and Recreation and Parks Department to 
expend Zoo Bond Funds for the Repair and Replacement 
Work described herein and in the accompanying 
supplemental funding request; and 

C) Authorizes the Director of Public Works ("Director") 
pursuant to Administrative Code Section 2A.190, to 
contract with the San Francisco Zoological Society, 
without advertising for competitive, bids, said contract 
not to exceed $913,500." 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

5 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

October 27, 1999 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

Comments: File No. 99-1912 



. The Budget Analyst has completed a performance 
audit of the San Francisco Zoological Gardens and is 
currently finalizing the audit report, which is expected 
to be transmitted to the Board of Supervisors in 
November of 1999. The Budget Analyst's report will 
contain recommendations pertaining to Zoo capital 
projects. 

:. Section 3.18 of the Administrative Code provides that 
public buildings, aboveground structures, parks, and 
transportation improvement projects, include two 
percent of the gross estimated construction cost for art 
enrichment. However, Section 3.18 also provides that 
the if the officer, board, or commission concerned 
determines that two percent of the gross estimated 
construction cost is inappropriate for art enrichment, 
such officer, board, or commission shall submit its 
recommendation regarding the art enrichment budget 
and the basis for its determination to the Arts 
Commission for the Arts Commission's review. The 
$800,000 request for the City's Public Art Program 
included in the proposed supplemental appropriation 
is based on two percent of a $40 million construction 
base within the $73 million overall project for all of 
Phase II. 

5. During the course of the performance audit at the San 
Francisco Zoological Gardens, the Budget .Analyst has 
discussed with Zoo management the appropriateness 
of submitting a request to the Art Commission to limit 
the amount designated for art enrichment to 1.5 
percent of the construction base instead of two percent, 
or a total of $600,000 instead of $800,000, based on the 
discretionary authority contained in the 
Administrative Code. The rationale for this request is 
that, according to Mr. Mann, the existing construction 
budget is very tight and does not provide replacement 
exhibits for some species, including the northern bears 
and the sea lions, which are now exhibited in 
substandard exhibits and quarters. Therefore, the 
Budget Analyst is recommending that $200,000 be 
placed on reserve pending a final determination by the 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

6 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

October 27, 1999 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

Zoo Director of the amount to be allocated for art 
enrichment. 

4. The subject supplemental appropriation request of 
$16,898,894, as shown in Exhibit I above, includes the 
combined sum of $1,264,939 for Construction 
Management ($976,302) and for Program 
Management ($288,637). The San Francisco Zoo Bond 
Program Report of December 1, 1996, limits such costs 
to 10 percent of the total amount allocated to the 
construction estimate, including costs for Fees & 
Permits. The combined sum of $1,264,939 for 
Construction Management and Program Management 
is approximately 8.7 percent of the construction 
estimate of $14,507,978, which includes $14,314,301 
for Construction costs and $193,677 for Fees & 
Permits. The Budget Analyst recommends that an 
annual report be submitted to the Board of 
Supervisors regarding such funds. 

5. Regarding the use of Zoo staff to perform the "Repair 
and Replacement" work, the Director of Public Works 
has stated in his memorandum in Attachment II that 
"The alternative of putting the contract out to bid may 
result in a lower price but it will not guarantee the 
safety of the Zoo animals." The Director of Public 
Works further states that "In the current bidding 
climate, it is likely that it is less expensive to use 
Zoological Society staff to perform this work." 

Recommendations: 1. Amend the proposed supplemental appropriation 

ordinance (File 99-1912) by reserving $200,000, in 
accordance with Comment No. 3, and approve the 
ordinance as amended. 

2. Request that the Zoological Society provide the Board 
of Supervisors with an annual report on the expenditure 
of Construction Management and Program Management 
funds, commencing in December of 2000, in accordance 
with Comment No. 4 above. 

3. Approve the proposed ordinance (File 99-1913). 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

7 



n i_ l_en_IIllieu L 



2 

1 

5 

8 

Si 

si 

1? 

.2 « 
o sr 






88; 









8§ 



5^3 
£281 



*1 

i! 

14 



5S 

22 









tug 



5 » a S 2 



oXx8 
(2 fl 9 a 



9335 

sts'n 



MM 

*SRR 



MIS 

P a fl a 
I4U 



111 



a a a a 
Eiii 



3333 

5355 



n M o. M 

ooeo 



111 



T/T 3DWd 



f99T66e STt- S3N0T N01NW1S 



M : BT 66- 22 100 



City and County of San Francisco 




Willie Lewis Brown, Jr., Mayor 
Mark A. Primeau, Architect, AIA, Director 



Attachment II 
rage 1 of 2 

CL (-'5) 554-5S20 

W; 'SV7t FAX (415) 554-6944 

'^-^H nrtr;://www.sfdDw.com 



Department of Public Works 

Office of the Director 

City Hall, Room 348 

1 Dr. Carlton 3. GoodieK Place 

San Franc:sco, CA 941C2-4545 



TO: 
FROM: 
DATE: 
R£: 



MEMORANDUM 



Finance and Labor Comminee Members 



t 



Mark A. Primeau ALA, Director of Public Wo 




£m^. 



October 6, 1999 



File 991913 - Ordinance authorizing the Director of Public Works 
to use Zoological Society staff to perform construction work 
without competitive bid. 



Recommended Action 

Approve the proposed ordinance as a companion ordinance to the 516,898,894 

supplemental appropriation request currently before the Board of Supervisors. 

Background 

The Department of Public Works (DPW) is requesting an appropriation of 
SI 6,898,894 in General Obligation bonds approved by the voters in 1997 for 
various improvements to the Zoo facilities. Of that appropriation, DPW is 
requesting that S91 3,500 be allocated on a sole source basis to the Zoological 
Society to make repairs to zoo exhibits. 

Ajialvsis/Reasoning for Recommendation 

Our goal is to minimize disruption and adverse affects on zoo animals during 
construction. The Zoological Society staff is uniquely qualified to perform work 
in Zoo exhibits. Because the Zoological Society is not a City agency, DPW needs 
to receive authorization from the Board of Supervisors to use the Zoological 
Society to perform this work through an ordinance. The alternative of putting the 
contract out to bid may result in a lower price 1 but it will not guarantee the safety 
of the zoo animals. 

Fiscal Implications 

We are requesting S9 13,500 from the companion supplemental appropriation to 
fund this work. As previously noted, it may cost less to put the contract out to bid, 
but it is unlikely in the current bidding climate. It may also cost more overall 



In the current bidding climate, it is likely that it is less expensive to use Zoological 
Society staff to perform this work. 



IMPROVING THE QUALITY OF LIFE IN SAN FRANCISCO' We are dedicated individuals committed to teamwork. 

customer service and continuous improvement in pannership with the community 

Customer Service Teamwork Continuous Improvement 



Zoological Society Sole Source Ordinance 
October 6, 1999 
Page 2 



because we would need to oversee the construction to ensure work was 
accomplished as outlined in the specifications. 



10 



Attachment III 



10 October 1999 




S tauten Vv. Jones 

Budge: Analyst Office 

Board Df Supervisors 

1 390 Market Street, Suite 1025 

San Francisco, C A 94102 

Dear Stan: 

The San Francisco Zoological Society requests that the City of San Francisco Scare of Supervisors 
Finance and Labor Committee, approve the proposed ordinance (file 991913) as a companion 
ordinance to the supplemental appropriation request of 516,898,894 currently before the Board of 
Supervisors. This ordinance will allow the San Francisco Department of Public Works (DPW) to 
appropriate $913,500 of the $16,898,894 General Obligation Bonds to be allocated on a sole source 
basis to the San Francisco Zoological Society. These funds will be used for labor and materials for 
various repairs and renovations to existing exhibits. Projects funded by these funds are reviewed and 
unproved by the Department of Recreation and Park. 

Our goal is to minimize disruption and adverse effects on Zoo animals during construction. The 
Zoological Society staff is uniquely qualified in that regard as well as specifically trained to perform 
work on Zoo exhibits. Because the Zoological Society is not a City agency, DPW needs to receive 
authorization from the Board of Supervisors to use Zoological Society staff to perform this work 
through an ordinance. 

The Zoological Society will hire additional Maintenance Staff to facilitate these projects. Upon 
completion these staff will be absorbed into the Zoological Society's Maintenance Department to 
provide ongoing general support and maintenance for Zoo grounds and facilities. 

Thank you for your time and consideration of our request. 



Sincer 




uavic t. Aneerso: 
Zoo Director 



Tut San Francisco Zooi.ocic.ai Society 

1 Zoo Ro;ld -i -I 

San Francisco, C..\ j)ii}i-i:j6 






— — — -~ c •» 



- 



e- o r«i O 

rvi o e*\» *"* 



a — 
^ — rM o o r* 



r- .n — rfi o ei 



-^ C C ^ -r 
— en o \c it 



Ct O O CI 



c> •■* *n 



C e^ • r~ Ci 



ci o — en 



e im •» 

T rv. >s 



_ — en en — <« 






q — O 

:- 5! ~ us 



-co - 



rr i\ a ^> 






. u") »f} O r>e 



T — C3 C 

en c-j cm en 

v is t" *n* 

^ 2 O r. 



»n o — rsi o rs rs. c rx ^ *n, "^ ^. «. v . *". *. 
o" to* — " — " p*.' o o o cm* cm* *rs" V r* crj ~- £ £ 

^D — — — cm — — « 



c *- C C — 



*n rf*. cm 



r - fN to «r> - - 



m ik. — — -s, *-. 



« o c — — <m n c — cm 
— CCOnnn — CO 
Z C C ei d %n \T> o C> O 



~aooooooo5oco£ 



gggggfg© eSooooggo 

= SSSSS£SSS2£SSSrXSSSSrXSrXSSrMSeXevr>,?;S;eXeX^=C^ = = = : 







■= o o 









T5 5 • ■= 






u— r ? H o c £ 2 



= c c o o o - 



~ _ U 
= 5 = 



Mffll 

5 1 £ cd -: U < 









2 • S < 

il|f 



occooor, i 



(rt U < — — ~ ** ** *» ^ 



12 



S».»Oujj5<< 






^.utacnment V 



1! 



O p<") O O O — o o o o o 

— ["--u^bebeObebeb^^be 

ifi 90 PI -5T 

oC oo* rr — ' 

o t o r- 



g 1 

U ^ 



a a a a 






Q O 



g a 



Q — PS PS — CM 

5?^ ^ p-» r-* r*i (— i 



tp-, p*"] p*"> 



O o p o o o o 



~oor-~o-3-pou^ 



■a- — 



oo o o 2 2 — — k_, 



— O r— 



o o o < o 
oo o - ~ r^ 



ooooooooooo 
ooooooooooo 

© 0_ 0_ © © 0_ ©_ 0_ O C3 o_ 

© o" o' o* ©' o* ©* ©* o' o' o* 

w~i»/->psPSOv-t' , 5"PSPSi/-iOO 
oooooou--, c>r-r— ps — o 

_" t6 N ' W tfi _• „' b« te * W 



OOOOOOOOOOO ©) 

beooooooooobebe. 

ooooooooo 



o o o o o o 

ON O O r-~ ON 00 



o o o o o 

O be © o o 

© © ©_ o_ 

So r- © oo 

r-~ -a- w~. r- 



o o o 



o( 


or 


©] 


O 
O 


°i 


O 




- 




00 


t*i 


PS 

be 



ooooooooooo 
ooooooooooo 
O ©_ o_ o_ o o o o o o o 
©* ©* o" o' ©" o" o" o' o" o o* 
b-> oo oo r^ 

OO u^ — X 

— O rn m" ps" o~ oo' p*">" — " oo* 

be — — 'bebebebebebebe 



2? 



O On ro o r— o o 



m ps pm o 

p*-. On rn ON U"~i 

o r- vo — to 



r^ ur-, oo o r^ o 

p*i t-~ vo o p*-i o 

r~- U-l P^" » r^i" o h-' CO r*{ 

Ol — r^^rv~,OOPSO 



O O W"J 

(N r^ m 



g 
























1 


T 






c 




. 


c 


b~t 


DO 


an 




PS 


-r 




— 






r- 


c 




- 


•* 






no 


c 








PS 




oc 


T 


PS] 


*a- 


c 


rsi 


*o 


~ 


PS 


-_ 


O 


o 


9 




OO 


^ 




PS 


ON 


— 


oo 


o 


u-i 


C 






t"» 






9 


9 


» 




V | 


00 




m 


J 


— 


oo 


o 


PS 





o 


NO 


PS 


be 


o 


be 


be 


be 


— 


be 


be 


be 


be 


be 




be 





o — 



O © — 



i/~. o 




S3 






s 
















q 


H 
[Si 


01 


i 









.i - - ps 



u 












35 







o _ 




O 


o 

o 




o 
N 


if * 


PS 


4 


N 


u 


y> 


a. ■= 
< a 




U-t 


•a 


-J 


u 


u 


BB 



S S b-3 2 .§ 3 2^ | 3 2 

O — ?3 '~ >- ^ 5 " > 3 = 

<i!!bSC<u5ni«wu 



— — ° 



-s < 



13 



■ u LdLlli.lCM L 




20 Oaob: 



•99 



'■'•- Jor.es 
Budget Analyst Office 
Board of Supervisors 
1390 Market Street, Suite 1025 
Sir. Francisco, CA 94102 

Dear Stan: 

.: ::. Francisco Zoological Societ; agr< em 

to "use its reasonable efforts to initiate und complete a fundraisinjj can 

minimum amount of 525.000,000 10 finance the construction of capil 

the Zoo."' The Capital Campaign was initiated in Januai 

June. 1997 with the successful Zoo Bond campaign. The Capita! Ca: 

to complement the funds provided by the Zoo Bond. The public phase oi the eampai 

was initiated in May, 1999. To date, '.he Zoological Society has raise 

oi S 1 8.2S6.327, about 73°/o of the goal. The set:. 

S25.000.000 campaign is December 31, 2000. and we anticipate rea 

the; timeframe. 






Sine; 



( ci>Q£, 






David li. Anderson 
Zoo Director 



Ths S.\.s Fkancisc.o Zoological Soci: 
1 Zoo Road 

San Frinci^cc. CA «i.j: ji-icpS 
UM) 7J3-7»8o 



14 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

October 27, 1999 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

Item 3 - File 99-1537 

Note: This item was continued by the Finance and Labor Committee at its 
meetings of September 15, 1999, and September 29, 1999. 



Department: 
Item: 



Amount: 



Source of Funds: 



Description: 



San Francisco Unified School District (SFUSD) 

Ordinance appropriating $60,713,766 of General 
Obligation Bonds (Educational Facility Bonds, 1997A - 
SFUSD) Series 1999B proceeds for Phase I capital 
improvement projects on various school facilities, cost of 
issuance, and debt service, for the San Francisco Unified 
School District for fiscal year 1999-2000. 

$60,713,766 

General Obligation Bonds (Educational Facility Bonds, 
1997A - SFUSD) Series 1999B, hereafter referred to as 
"Educational Facility Bonds, Series 1999B". 

On June 3, 1997, a total of $90,000,000 m General 
Obligation Bonds for the construction and upgrading of 
SFUSD educational facilities was approved by the 
electorate. Educational Facility Bonds, Series 1999B 
were issued on June 16, 1999 for the construction and/or 
reconstruction of educational facilities for the SFUSD. 
According to Ms. Laura Opsahl-Bordelon of the Mayor's 
Office of Public Finance and Economic Development, the 
total Bond proceeds for Educational Facility Bonds, Series 
1999Bare in the amount of $60,713,766. 

The subject supplemental appropriation would 
appropriate the $60,713,766 in Bond proceeds for the 
following: (a) $60,287,090 for Phase I capital 

improvement projects on various SFUSD school facilities, 
(b) $235,050 for bond issuance costs, and (c) $191,626 for 
debt service costs (accrued interest payments and a 
portion of the underwriters premium). 

SFUSD expenditure data previously provided to the 
Budget Analyst showed that the SFUSD expended 
$37,818,784 for Phase I capital improvement projects 
without appropriation approval from the Board of 
Supervisors. As explained in Comment No. 3, revised 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

15 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

October 27, 1999 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



Budget: 



data submitted by the SFUSD now shows that a total of 
$36,481,103 has been expended, including (a) $23,152,192 
for Phase I capital improvement projects, (b) $7,456,497 
for Phase II capital improvement projects, and (c) 
$5,872,414 for additional projects. 

The budget for Phase I capital improvement projects is 
summarized as follows: 





Incurred as 


Not Yet 


Total 




of 10/19/99 


Expended 


Estimated 
Costs 


Phase I Capital Improvement 


$23,152,192 


$37,134,898 


$60,287,090 


Projects (as detailed in Section 








B of Attachment I) 








Bond Issuance Costs 





235,050 


235,050 


Debt Service 





191.626 


191.626 


TOTAL 


$23,152,192 


$37,561,574 


$60,713,766 



Section B of Attachment I, provided by the SFUSD, 
contains a project budget for projects totaling $60,287,090 
for Phase I of the SFUSD's capital improvement program 
which would be funded by the Educational Facility Bonds, 
Series 1999B in FY 1999-2000. 

Section A of Attachment I also contains the proposed 
projects totaling S29. 712.910 for Phase II of the SFUSD's 
capital improvements program. Together. Phases I and II 
account for the total SFUSD capital improvement 
program cost of $90,000,000. According to Mr. Tim 
Tronson of the SFUSD. the SFUSD will seek a second 
bond issuance to fund Phase II. He advises that the 
SFUSD anticipates, based on current project scheduling 
and subject to Board of Supe-visors approval, that the 
second bond issuance will occur within the next 12-18 
months. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

16 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

October 27, 1999 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

Comments: 1. In November 1997, the Board of Supervisors 

authorized and directed the sale of General Obligation 
Bonds (Educational Facility Bonds, 1997 - SFUSD) Series 
1998C not to exceed S47, 000,000 (Resolution No. 149-98). 
The issuance of General Obligation Bonds (Educational 
Facility Bonds, 1997 - SFUSD) Series 1998C was delayed 
due to litigation related to Proposition D which had been 
placed on the same June 3, 1997 ballot to authorize the 
City to issue Football Stadium Bonds to finance a portion 
of a new stadium development project at Candlestick 
Point. This litigation delayed bond counsel issuing a final 
opinion on the validity of the SFUSD bonds. 
Consequently, the SFUSD requested that additional Bond 
funds be issued to cover project costs for an additional 
year. On March 1, 1999 the Board of Supervisors 
authorized and directed the sale of Educational Facility 
Bonds, Series 1999B. not to exceed 864.000,000 (File 99- 
0200), thereby replacing the previous authorization of 
$47,000,000. This represented an increase of 

$17,000,000, or approximately 36 percent. 

Educational Facility Bonds, Series 1999B were issued on 
June 16, 1999 (File 99-1154). According to Ms. Opsahl- 
Bordelon, the total Bond proceeds for Educational Facility 
Bonds, Series 1999B are in the amount of 860,713,766. 

2. In July of 1998, the SFUSD submitted to the Finance 
Committee of the Board of Supervisors a budget 
breakdown of the proposed 860.287,090 Phase I capital 
improvements program to be funded by the subject 
Educational Facility Bonds, Series 1999B. Although the 
total budget of 860,287,090 remains unchanged, between 
July 1998 and October 1999 there have been various 
shifts in the allocation of funds between component 
capital improvement projects. 

In response to the request by the Finance and labor 
Committee, at its meeting of September 15. 1999, the 
SFUSD has prepared its first report, to be issued 
quarterly, pertaining to the bond expenditures. This 
report was prepared by the SFUSD after conferring with 
the Mayor's Office of Finance, the Controller's Office and 
the Office of the Budget Analyst. The SFUSD will update 
this report, on a quarterly basis, to provide a review of 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

17 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

October 27, 1999 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



actual SFUSD spending and projected capital 
improvement project costs in order to determine the 
extent to which bond funds have been expended for the 
purposes originally identified for the issuance of the 
bonds. 

Attachment I contains (a) an explanatory cover 
memorandum from the SFUSD, (b) a summary of total 
project expenditures (Section A), and (c) a report on 
expenditures against the first bond issuance of 
$60,287,090 (Section B). 

3. As shown in Sections A and B of the SFUSD report in 
Attachment I, the SFUSD has already incurred Phase I 
capital improvement project expenditures of $23,152,192, 
or approximately 38 percent, of the subject $60,287,090 
prior to obtaining Board of Supervisors approval. In 
addition, as shown in Section A of the report in 
Attachment I, the SFUSD has already expended (a) 
$7,456,497 on preliminary Phase II design and 
architecture fees against the proposed second bond 
issuance of $29,712,910, and (b) $5,872,414 on additional 
projects. As explained in the SFUSD cover memo in 
Attachment I, the SFUSD has authorized these 
expenditures to leverage State grants in the total amount 
of $46,980,924 for capital improvements. This has 
resulted in some of the projects which were originally to 
be funded by Educational Facility Bonds, Series 1999B 
funds being funded instead by State grants, thereby 
releasing Educational Facility Bonds, Series 1999B funds 
for projects not proposed in the SFUSD's original 
program. Therefore, the SFUSD intends to complete all 
projects originally specified for Phases I and II, plus 
expend an additional $46.9S0.924 in State funds for other 
capital improvements, as shown in Attachment I, Section 
A. 

The SFUSDs capital improvement project expenditures to 
date, total $36,481,103 ($23,152,192 + $7,456,497 - 
$5,872,414), or approximately 40.5 percent of the total 
$90,000,000 proposed for Phases I and II of the SFUSD's 
capital improvements program. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

18 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

October 27, 1999 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

4. Attachment II is a memorandum from Mr. Tronson 
which further explains why the SFUSD has expended 
bond funds prior to obtaining appropriation approval from 
the Board of Supervisors. 

Recommendation: Because capital improvement expenditures of 

S36,4S1,103, or approximately 40.5 percent, of the 
$90,000,000 proposal for Phases I and II of the SFUSD's 
capital improvement program have already been incurred 
by the SFUSD prior to obtaining appropriation approval 
from the Board of Supervisors, approval of the proposed 
ordinance is a policy matter for the Board of Supervisors. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

19 



z: 
< 



— t» © 5 • 5 

"2 =oi- r; so C 



.2 =* =. c 



w 


— o 




CJ 


o U 




Q _ 




= '-Z 










a 


kj" «c 


£. 










u si 












- m 


>■» 












cj er 


2 ^ 


w 




.* ( — 




c/: ~ 


> = 


c: 










= 2 














< 


•J U 




































>2 




; 


« 0> 


O S> 












■— "S 








2 "= 


= fi 


On 


Z: a 


— .5 


Q\ 



- 9 s - 



AHachmentJ 
Pa gs 1 of 17 






^— - ^ 



o 2 - — Z. 

J < 9 [1 ■•= 



o • r- *■- "= 



- X c ■= - 

z • > S — 



< 6 



£— 5 w — g ^ 5 

re t> - u : £ - c 



5 «» -J J» -g £ « ^ 3 3 

.= ' so t>"^ iJZ 3 ? 



— • ■ s — 



8 = "2 * = 2 

~ H = - = — 

1 lllll 



20 



— ss Z. 



ci; - * 



Attachment T 
Page 2 of 17 



<■ o — — 



— o o — 

=* « o = 



■ — 2 c 
S 5 >» =■ 



■3 


= Cj — 


-J 


< 


5 2 




f < "5 










»» " 






< 2 








30 




c O £ 




























3 


s 1 ■§ 


•5 


Z 


— ' 5 




■;!! O 










O^o 






■3 





>> 2 s 


j 


O 


£< 


g 


~ 2 J; 


~" 


3 "_ 




tl<2 > 






- 3 




















■S 


"f? ~~ 


a 


= 


^z O 



s » < ■ 

— °> =. o 



— •», O 



= i; o o 

5- £.<= 



o tn — ! 7; 



■5 o "° — 

;-. — "3 — 



as — — 






1 «: »•? 


■B 


r 


5 


~r 


s. 


g 




BO 


= 


u 


a£ 


1 


r 


" ^ o"I CJ 


c 


D 

9 





D 


L> 


V 


BO'S :"3 "3 

- c " E 2 
O 2; ° ■= t; 

- ™ 1 O w 


it 


J 


s 


| 


s 


a 


■S 


a 





5 


u 


| 



.2 s S — o 
= c o s s 



21 



i §s 

"» 3d 

— < 



- 



Page 3 of 17 



22 



Attachment T 
Page 4 of 17 



— = -J LI 



z 


<c 


1:1 


s 


c 


o 






; 


c/> 



13 
S3 



= 5< 



^£3 

X ^ ^ 



> O 3 
U E => 
IE C. 3 



O £ < 



t — -s 



- < E. 

~ c. c 

a £ J5 

S I | 1 

•3 » 

< - 



u -o — 5 



1 1 



23 



Attachment T 
Page 5 of 17 



u 

■J-. 



U 
z 

1/3 ° 

/^ — 

z^ 
5 



K 



24 



Attachment T 
Pase 6 of 17 



J 

2 - si 
His 

s ^ > < 



S.T 



I- ^ 

is § 

i£» 

«= - =* 



2 


a 


■>- 







i— 


I 


o 







Rl 










n 


u 


co 




< 


< 





553 



n 


— 


u 


D 


w 


U5 


O 


CO 

in 














c 


C3 


o 




o 


3 


c-> 


K 


£■ 



-55 



1 = 



O 
< 

£ 1 

— o 

a - 

2 £. 

O E 

a - 
en 



— — — -J to 



» "3 < 

c/: — 



i < 

= 5 



u < 

£ 5 



= w C 

c o = 

u 5 a 

« O 3 



< < 

o o 

< < 



25 



omasa 

< < < < < 

w z: a o o 



— — — 8c 



ll 



Attachment T 
Page 7 of 17 



» u < 

gz£n 

? 5 > < 

C < uj - 
C. a _l « 






u = 5 

Si 



O o 



- 



S 3' 

5 < 



- < 

" 5 



u < 

■S 5 



U £ 5 



5 5 



26 



5 S 

5 o 

G D 



5 5 

- - 

- a 



R <' 



Attachment T 
PageS of 17 



= 55 






5 £ £ 



> < 



■BE? 

< s5 < 

I c c — 



Is* 



> 6 2 

"J c s 
— c c 



D 


r- 


^ 


r*s 


03 


!' 1 


q; 


EQ 


>■, 





— 


•— 


03 


U 


~ 


o 


CO 


u. 


-J 
3 


a 

to 


< 




2 


K 


O 


O 


00 







LO 


D 
E 

B. 


CO 

LU 

K 



3 < 

" 5 



o o 


to CO tn 


d a 




1 S 


- t t 


o o 





w w UJ w 

O O O O 



ss§ 



K 


t- 




< 


< 


•; 


it 


£ 


£ 




;:■ 


111 


u 


U 


a 

















t 


c 


u 






(9 


o 


a 



27 



Attachment I 
Paee 9 of 17 



a 5 a Ji 

o5>< 
c < £ s 

— — _ IT. 



2 < 

> < 

-I to 



s J < 

C => < 



[i" 



,?U;3 



5^2 



> O G 
uj ~ - 
— 0. c 



^ -J -= 

O D < 



cn 

O 


t_> 


o 


o 











I < 



! I 






; S 



II 



1 2 



"D < 

i 5 



• - < 

■ - D 



> > 

o o 
o o 



K 


to 


BB 


to 


s s 


c 


a 


< 


< 



u _ 
en en 



28 



.-ittachmpnt T 
Page 10 of 17 



-55 



'J3 5 ~ "* 






u < 

™ .3 



i ? 



5 ^ 





en oi 




2 2 
















< < 




c c 


V) t£ tr> in 






o m 




c c 




LU U U U 




5 5 5 5 


5 — 


o o o o 


5 S 



29 



~ y s 

— < LU 

o. a ri 



Attachment I 
Paae 11 of 17 



t c. 2 
= c s 



o j» c — 
5 5 £.£ 



> < 



< t_ u - 

~ 2 m y 



cj = a 



S2 ^ 3 

> O C 

uj ~ - 

S c c 



III 

5 =3 < 





CL 


c 


-1 


CD 


:: 


J 


cr 


m 




>N 


o 


3 


5 


u 






o 



2 c: 
o o 



o a 



u o 



1 u < 

in - 



■g < 

•i 5 



- < 

J 3 



en en 



o o 5 
~ ~ ~ 

=> 3 3 

a o q 

••-■•• 

t g. a 





3 O 




e r 




Uj uj 




- a 










en en en en 


™ s 








< < 


o o o o 


£ 5 


3 9 9 9 




en in Oi en 


5 a 


UJ UJ IU UI 


o o 



< < 



30 



Attachment I 
Pase 12 of 17 



| 5 

< s 



2 = 1 
-I 



ilia 



- 'J id 6 



C LLI 
> < 



£ ui c 
g o 3 

o ^ ^ 



> o d 

LLI Lt =3 

— c n 



S S 5 | 
o a < 



6 2 



3 


o 


P 


a. 




UJ 




L_: 


c 


C/3 


O 


CO 

UJ 


r- 


E 


^ 


"1 




O 


cr> 


e 




O c»o 



1 ": 



= 23 

o o o 

o o o 

u -j -j 

=: c: c 

3 3 3 



55 
IS 

UJ UJ 

3 3 



2 £ 



31 



Att achment I 
Pa ge 13 of 17 



i?S 



32 



AHachmenU 
Page 14 01" 17 



LU 




O 


tn 


2 


u 


< 




D 




co 


Q. 


CO 


< 






Q 


o 


z: 


Q. 


o 


n; 


a 


5 


h 


— 


co 


■§ 


k 


< 



CO j 

i < 

5 5 



■ V) 



33 



u < 

Q — V. 



— UJ 
> < 



3 < 



= 3 



_j r < 

< LL O 



3 


— 


13) 





















3 




UJ 

m 




>> 





1 


55 


b 






a 


3 


ro 


u. 

o 




U 


en 


a 


< 


<. 




z 


2^ 







~. 


3 


l_ 


CL. 



< *- s 



Anachment I 
Paee 15 of 17 



m 
o 
2: 
< 

CO 

to 

Q 
O 

a 

■ — 

CO 



U U O O U (J 'J U U U 'J -J 'J 'J 'J u u u - 






o o • o o 



000000 



- O a> 



- ss 






c a a o 



s § § s s 



OOOO^OOOOOOOi 



Q rv ».- e o a> 



— O O — - 



O O O O O O ▼ 

-000000 



w j B B 



I. I i ! 



OOOOOOOOOOOOO 



oooooooooooooooeoooo 



'_■<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<■_-< 



:. t L - - 



IOLtLLLO.ae.t.a.tC.D.LC.t.tl{LtC.«llL><<<;ntLILtLLLttt,t 



1 3«S 3 



fc £ y 



||£<I71 S S?Ji?lf«=I I 2 t 

I*iiiE H If I M|l| -i Nl^Jil lof s M3 S.J3 81 »-|I l| 

i3|iiiIiU?i!«lll!nM^ifl!=hiiii!Hii|Sil 

|!l!!fli^!lll|!sl1|li^l|<iitl!j^'?-f=i~I-i^ 



nwRviiflinoMV) 



■■ .• .- m 1.'. ■ 



in » tn ia u> 



aaBumnniiiiijBlBKjjjjjjjIj 
55S[a"3g§§5§S"«!»gS"«»!»agw!aaj»e>c»»o]o>a>a 



22222222222222222222 

<<<<<<<<<<<< 
>>>>>>>>>>>> 



22222222222222 c z 3 555 



<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< 



>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>$ 



<<<<<<<<<< 
- >>>>>>> 



^^—000 



C •*• — -~ = 



34 



c -i *i 



Attachment I 
Pase 16 of 17 



35 



o O 



Ar.a:hmerH I 
Paee 17 of 17 



2,* (Si 



< 2 w 



1 


- 


U 


" 




^ 








- 






z: 


a 
































£ 














— 




- 


ir 






< 














c 


- 


: 




• J - 


— 




_ 






u 


ui 








> 








j? 


_ 


























■s 


u 


r- 


1 


z: 


< 



£. £ 5 I 



3 => 



36 



--lacr.rp.e-T. _, 
'£2e 1 of 3 



©IT 1 U ^)]}J SAN PEANCI3C0 

UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT 

FACmnES FLANXTKC £ CONSTRUCTION 

Iviairnxiirn 

~c: Alan Gfcson, Budget Anaiyst 

OC: Enrioue \ T avas. CFO 



From: i im Tronspa>;P\ 

Date: 09/1 0799 ^^ 

Ret Advance ExDendhurcs 



In accordance with your reaucsl I am providing you with foe San Francisco Unified School 
District's ("District") reasons and information related to advance cxpena'mrres of the 
anticipated proceeds from the Genera! Obligation Bonds (Education Facility Bond, 1997 A - 
San Francisco Unified School District), Series 19993 for educational improvements. The 
issues are as follows: 

1. Since the passage of the Proposition A on June 3, 1997, the District has proceeded 

with the planning, review and construction of its band funded projects. Because of 
the pendancy of the SF 49ers' case and bond counsel's position, the District could not 
sell the bonds to pay for the projects. Therefore, the District has fronted the costs of 
*■ these projects from its own fund sources. The District has proceeded -with these 
projects for the following reasons: 

(1 ) Long planning lead-time (see paragraph 2 below). 

(2) Availability of State funding (sec paragraph 3 beiow). 

(3) Several of the projects Effected the hearth and safety of the District's students 
and employees. The District intends to use a pa-don of its bond proceeds for 
such projects, including structural upgrades of buildings that do not me=t 
current seismic codes. 

(4) Several of the nroiects improved the abiirry of students and employees with 
disabilities to utiiize the District's facilities. The District intends to use e 
portion of its bond proceeds to address facilities issues that limit access to 
persons with disabilities. 

(5) Tin mrolementarion of classroom reduction statewide has placed severe 
constraints on this District's ability to house elementary school children. The 
averaee "students cer classroom loading schedule" (statewide) has gone from 
32 students d=t classroom to 20 students per classroom. Conseaucrrtially, the 



i c^i *£„,„„„*, *,,»„..«. &.„ *-n.nrWft. OA fUt24 THeDhone '4151 695-5500 Fax (4151 695-5667 37 
PB/TB'd iSSS S=3 SIP 



•nrbrtL C.A 9At24 THeDhone '4151 695-5500 Fax (4151 695-5667 

3NiM*ra/S3imiDyd osn^s ts-.m c S5T _ aT -~: 



Seprsmoe' 10, *?5~ 



32 students psr eiassroorr. to 20 students per eiassroorr.. CoaseouenticllY. die 
demand for elementary school faciiioes has exceedee tne suop'ry since the 
District houses far less students or. the same school sirs. ir. San rraneisec 
wrs arc accommodating 2 portion of the student housing needs with the bond 
proceeds. These projects include ih: planning and construction of the rrw 
Parkside Elementa-y School, three new academic wings (Sheridan ES. Ciarre 
Litienthaj ES, Alice Fong Yu ES). £ gymnasium, and an auditorium. 

-• The typical overall planning review and construction process take; 2^-?6 month? 

depending on the scops of the project. The District dots not go through the Citv 
Planning Department, for IS pian review process, the construction of facilities, or the 
completion of irnprovements. Trie District goes through the Department of die Stats 
Architect (DSA) for hs plan review. Tnis process axes approximately six to cisht 
months. In addition to DSA, the District goes through a Department of Education 
(DEA) review (usually 1-2 months) and a review by the Office of Public School 
Construction (OPSC) review (2-3 months). Trie District is also required to pian the 
she development or improvement m advance of these reviews. Tnis process, 
depending on the scope of the project, takes from i2-iS months. 

During this process, the District retains the services of ■ professional architect and all 
of the enginecrinc trades (electrical, mechanical, cec-technical and structirral) to 
complete the project plans and spec ifi cations. Tne District pays for aE of these 
services and the desien review as they are completed and in advance of Stale 
approval and funding and bidding approval. When this process is finished and the 
project is placed out to bid, the District awards and funds the completion of the 
project through a general contractor. Tne typical construction project runs '.!-) $ 
months. Considering the above information, the District had planned and prepared fcr 
bid a number of projects that were hiciuded within the bond proposal When tne 
bond passed, these projects were placed out to bid and awEroed_to genera contractors 
for construction. These proiects are eurrerrtiy under construction. 

3. As you know, the District intends to utilize bond proceeds, bond interest earnings, 
and all of its other sources of revenue to build facilities, modernize facilities, 
augment existing facilities, and complete seismic and technology infrastructure 
improvements throughout the City and County of San Francisco. Since the passage 
of the Proposition A or. June 3, 1997, the District has proceeded with the planning, 
review and project application process with the State for seventeen (1 7) District sites. 
These 17 projects are shared funding projects, meaning that the Stas wi|] fund 80% 
(eighty) of the improvement project and the District will fund 20%. Tne totai vaiuc 
of the imp r o vement work to be eompieted or. the 11 shes is S- 3 9.642,466.00. Tne 
State's 80% share amounts to S39.7I3.972..&C with the District's portion cauaJinc 
S9.928.493.20. Tne District was anticipating the utilization of the ima e s: camir.es 
from the bond proceeds and other source funds to meet hs commitment on these 
projects. Without the use of these interest earnings from the bond proceeds the 
District will be unabie vd proceed with the development of these protects. 



*a/20-d c9=s s=9 SXP 3NiM*ru/s3unir*y csn=3 



38 






Sszrerr.Der 1 Q, 193£ 



Additionally, State fund ssasu are limited in both the amount =nd the duration of 
avaiiabiiity. If the District had beer, unable to proceed with the devcioDrr.ent of these 
projects by February !99S, it was iiksiy that the District wouid have iost the State's 
commitment to fund its 80% share of £39.713,972.80. 



i nan»3 
Tim Tronson 



39 

'3-TS'd Z.??S SS9 £Zf DNIN^-,d-'SH:in:Dt ; d CSTbS Z=,:rt ^SS'-Z'-dES 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

October 27, 1999 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

Item 4 - File 99-1870 

Department: Real Estate Department 

Department of Telecommunications and Information 
Services (DTIS) 

Item: Resolution authorizing and approving a license 

renewal for the U. S. Department of Justice for (a) a 
one rack transmitter at the City's Central Radio 
Station located on Twin Peaks Boulevard, at 
Christmas Tree Point, and (b) space for an antenna at 
Christmas Tree Point, located on Twin Peaks. 



Location: 



Twin Peaks Boulevard, at Christmas Tree Point 



Purpose of License: Operation by the U.S. Department of Justice (DO J) of 
its Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) 
communications equipment used by the FBI for 
internal communications and surveillance equipment. 



Licensee: 



Licensor: 



U.S. Department of Justice 

City and County of San Francisco 



Rental Amount 

Payable by the U.S. 

Department of 

Justice to the City: $2,000 per month or $24,000 per year. The rental cost 
would increase by an inflation adjustment of up to four 
percent annually during the five-3 r ear term of license. 



Increase over 
Prior Lease: 



$1,000 per month, or $12,000 annually, a 100% 
increase. 



Utilities and 
Services: 

Term of Lease: 



Description: 



Not Applicable 

Five years, retroactive to October 1, 1999, ending 
September 30, 2004. 

Since 1988, the United States Department of Justice 
has occupied space in (a) the City's Central Radio 
Station for the operation of its Federal Bureau of 
Investigation communications equipment, and (b) at 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

40 



Memo to Finance and Labor Commit I 

October 27, 1999 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

the Christmas Tree Point Tower (Tower) for placement 
of its radio antenna. The City's Central Radio Station 
and the Tower are located at Twin Peaks. 

The proposed resolution would authorize and approve 
a license renewal for a one-rack transmitter, which is 
a framework measuring approximately two feet by two 
feet containing radio transmission components and an 
external space for a monopole antenna, which is used 
for transmitting radio signals. According to Mr. Tony 
DeLucchi, the Director of Property, because of security 
reasons, the subject premises on Twin Peaks are made 
available only to local, State, and Federal 
governmental agencies. DTIS and other governmental 
agencies maintain sensitive equipment on the 
premises. 

Comments: 1. According to Mr. DeLucchi, because of security 

reasons, the City's practice is to restrict lease of space 
in the City's Central Radio Station to governmental 
agencies. Therefore, it is not practical to competitively 
bid the subject space, according to Mr. DeLucchi. Mr. 
DeLucchi has stated that it is in the best interest of 
the City to renew this license agreement with the U.S. 
Department of Justice, based upon a sole-source 
negotiation. Approval of this legislation will permit 
the FBI, under the U.S. Department of Justice, to 
continue to utilize the City's Central Radio Station for 
its communication equipment. 

2. The existing lease with the Department of Justice 
expired on September 30, 1999. According to Mr. 
Larry Jacobson of the Department of Real Estate, the 
reason that the legislation for the license renewal is 
being submitted subsequent to the September 30, 
1999, expiration date of the prior license is that it took 
a considerable time for the U.S. Department of Justice 
to get approval of the increased rental amount. 

3. According to Mr. Jacobson, the proposed rent of 
$2,000 per month represents fair market value. 



Recommendation: Approve the proposed resolution. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

41 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

October 27, 1999 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



Item 5 -File 99-1881 

Department: 

Item: 



Description: 



Ethics Commission 

Urging the Ethics Commission to study and hold public 
hearings on a) public financing of candidate campaigns for 
local elective office and b) other measures, as detailed 
hereafter, designed to curb the influence of special- 
interest contributions on public policy and administration; 
to consider specific components of a public financing 
measure; to consider other campaign finance reforms 
designed to reduce the influence of campaign 
contributions on the design and/or award of Citj- 
contracts; to consider expanded disclosure requirements 
for candidates, independent expenditure committees and 
non-candidate controlled committees; to submit such 
proposed campaign reform measures as deemed necessary 
to the voters for voter consideration at the March 2000 
primary election; and to study and recommend to the 
Board of Supervisors methods by which the City and 
County can provide candidates for public office with cost- 
effective, direct access to voters. 

The proposed resolution urges the Ethics Commission to 
study and hold public hearings on public financing of 
candidate campaigns for local elective office and other 
measures designed to curb the influence of special- 
interest contributions on public policj'. 

The proposed resolution also urges the Ethics Commission 
to consider various specific public campaign financing 
mechanisms to allocate public funding to local elective 
campaigns, including partial public funding, full public 
funding, and matching funds tied to fundraising 
restrictions placed on candidates. 

The proposed resolution also urges the Ethics Commission 
to consider a prohibition on the submission of bids for City 
contracts if within the prior one to two years a company, 
its subsidiaries, subcontractors, officers, directors or 
principal shareholders have contributed a combined total 
of more than S 1,000 to: 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

42 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

October 27, 1999 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



a) a candidate for public office with direct purvi* 
over the design and/or award of such City 
contracts; 

b) an independent expenditure campaign for or 
against a candidate for public office; 

c) a registered lobbyist who makes contributions to 
a) or b) above; or 

d) a non-profit corporation controlled by an elected 
official with direct purview over the design 
and/or award of such City contracts. 

The proposed resolution also urges the Ethics Commission 
to consider a prohibition on the submission of bids for City 
contracts if within the prior one to two years a company, 
its subsidiaries, subcontractors, officers, directors or 
principal shareholders have contributed a combined total 
of more than $10,000 to: 

a) all candidates for public office with direct 
purview over the design and/or award of such 
City contracts; 

b) independent expenditure campaigns for or 
against such candidates; or 

c) registered lobbyists who make contributions to 
a) or b) above. 

The proposed resolution also urges the Ethics Commission 
to consider a prohibition on all campaign contributions by 
a company holding a City contract, or the subsidiaries or 
subcontractors of a company holding a City contract, to a 
candidate for local office who had direct purview over the 
design and/or award of the City contract during either a) 
the term of the City contract or b) a two-year period after 
the contract award, whichever is shorter. 

The proposed resolution also urges the Ethics Commission 
to consider a prohibition on campaign contributions 
totaling more than $1,000 by the officers, directors, or 
principal shareholders of a company holding a City- 
contract, or of the subsidiaries or subcontractors of a 
company holding a City contract, to a candidate for local 
office who had direct purview over the design and/or 
award of the contract during either a) the term of the Citv 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

43 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

October 27, 1999 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



contract or b) a two-year period after the contract award, 
whichever is shorter. 

The proposed resolution also urges the Ethics Commission 
to consider a bid preference for companies submitting bids 
for City contracts if, within the previous one to two years, 
such companies, their subsidiaries, officers, directors and 
principal shareholders have not contributed a combined 
total of more than $1,000 to: 

a) a candidate for local office with direct purview 
over the design and/or award of such City 
contracts; 

b) an independent expenditure campaign for or 
against such a candidate; 

c) a non-profit corporation controlled by an elected 
official; or 

d) a registered lobbyist who makes contributions to 
a), b) or c) above 

The proposed resolution also urges the Ethics Commission 
to consider expanded financial disclosure requirements 
for independent expenditure campaigns and non- 
candidate controlled committees and measures to provide 
voters with summaries of campaign fundraising activity. 

The proposed resolution also urges the Ethics Commission 
to submit a ballot proposition to implement reform 
measures specified in the resolution to the voters at the 
March 2000 primary election, as the Ethics Commission 
sees fit. 

Lastly, the proposed resolution urges the Ethics 
Commission to explore methods by which the City can 
provide candidates for local office with cost-effective direct 
access to the voters, such as: 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

44 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 

October 27, 1999 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 



a) increased and/or unrestricted space in the 
voter's handbook; 

b) provision of free and/or subsidized web pages 
accessible through the Department of Elections 
web page; 

c) City-organized campaign forums co-sponsored 
by non-partisan organizations; and 

d) increased access to the cable Government 
Channel. 



Comment: 



Based on information provided by Ms. Naomi Starkman of 
the Ethics Commission, other Cities that have adopted 
similar legislation, Los Angeles. CA. New York. NT and 
Tucson, AZ have incurred approximate costs per capita, 
not including administrative costs, ranging from SO. 42 for 
Tucson to S2.20 for Los Angeles, depending on such 
factors as whether the program provides full or partial 
campaign financing and how many elective offices are 
covered by the program in question. In addition. 
Starkman states that the estimated costs to the Ethics 
Commission, to conduct studies and hearings pertaining 
to the proposed resolution, would be approxim;:' 
$19,000, and would be absorbed within the current budget 
of the Ethics Commission. 



Recommendation: 



Approval of the proposed resolution is a policy matter for 
the Board of Supervisors. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 
October 27, 1999 Finance Committee Meeting 



Item 6 -File 99-1973 

Department: 

Item: 



Amount: 
Description: 



Mayor s Office of Housing (MOH) 

Resolution authorizing an application to the California 
Debt Limit Allocation Committee to permit the issuance 
of Mortgage Credit Certificates. 

Not to exceed $20,000,000 

The Mortgage Credit Certificate (MCC) Program is 
designed to assist first-time home buyers in purchasing a 
single-family residence in San Francisco. The program is 
directed toward individuals and families who would not 
be able to purchase housing without receiving some 
financial assistance. 

The MCC Program, which is a State-authorized program, 
provides assistance to first-time home buyers by allowing 
an eligible home purchaser to take an annual credit 
against Federal income taxes of a percentage of the 
annual mortgage interest payments on a single family 
residence or a duplex (see Comment 2). The percentage 
rate is established by the entity administering the 
program locally (in this case, the MOH), but may not 
exceed 50 percent of the mortgage interest. A home buyer 
who is awarded an MCC and who is also eligible for a tax 
credit on the interest expense paid on the mortgage, 
would still be able to deduct, for Federal income tax 
purposes, the remaining amount of the annual mortgage 
interest payments not claimed as a credit against the 
taxes in the usual manner. By reducing the Federal 
income tax burden, the home buyer is left with increased 
disposable income with which to cover mortgage 
payments. 

The proposed resolution would authorize the MOH to 
submit an application to the California Debt Limit 
Allocation Committee (CDLAC), the State agency which 
authorizes the amount of tax-exempt private-activity 
bonds and mortgage credit certificates which can be 
issued by local government agencies, for an additional 
allocation of Mortgage Credit Certificates in an amount 
not to exceed $20,000,000. In addition, the proposed 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

46 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 
October 27, 1999 Finance Committee Meeting 

resolution, in compliance with CDLAC regulations, would 
authorize (a) the City to place 0.5 percent Cone-half of one 
percent) of the requested allocation on deposit, in an 
amount not to exceed $100,000, in connection with the 
submission of the application to the CDLAC, and (b) the 
Director of the MOH to certify to CDLAC that such funds 
are available. 

Comments: 1. According to Ms. Maggie Davis-Badger of the MOH, the 

required $100,000 deposit shall consist of a restriction of 
cash in the City's Home Mortgage Assistance Fund, which 
consists of cash accumulated from loan repayments by 
individuals participating in the City's 1982 First Time 
Homebuyers Bond Program. Ms. Davis-Badger states 
that the above-noted deposit is required by CDLAC to 
ensure that the State requirements for issuing the 
Mortgage Credit Certificates are met by the local agency, 
including the requirement that the first Mortgage Credit 
Certificates provided to program recipients are issued 
within approximately 90 days of receipt of the allocation 
of Mortgage Credit Certificates from the State. 

2. Ms. Davis-Badger reports that, under the application to 
be submitted to the CDLAC, and in accordance with 
Federal Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and CDLAC 
regulations, the MOH will provide assistance to first-time 
home buyers by allowing an eligible home purchaser to 
take an annual tax credit against Federal income taxes of 
up to 15 percent. 

3. According to Ms. Davis-Badger, based on the State 
formula, the City would receive authority to issue 
Mortgage Credit Certificates, totaling $33,300,000, or 
$13,300,000 more than the proposed $20,000,000 
allocation amount. Ms. Davis-Badger states that the City 
expects to assist 167 home purchasers based on an 
average mortgage amount of $200,000. 

4. Ms. Davis-Badger reports that, from 1993 through 
1998, the Board of Supervisors has approved resolutions 
authorizing the MOH to submit applications to the 
CDLAC, resulting in seven actual allocations approved by 
the CDLAC, which provided MCC funds from the State to 
the City, totaling $90,657,075. However, the Budget 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

47 



Memo to Finance and Labor Committee 
October 27, 1999 Finance Committee Meeting 

Analyst notes that this amount differs from the amount of 
$71,927,430 on page 2, line 8, of the proposed resolution, 
and therefore, recommends that the proposed resolution 
be amended to reflect the correct amount of S90,657.075. 

5. As shown in the Attachment, provided by MOH, the 
City's 1998 Mortgage Credit Certificate Program assisted 
146 low to moderate income households with a median 
household income of $46,716 and a median home 
purchase price of S190,000, from January 1, 1998 through 
December 31, 199S. The City's 1999 Mortgage Credit 
Certificate Program assisted a total of 107 households 
with a median household income of S43,200 and a median 
home purchase price of $201,000, from January 1, 1999, 
through October 20, 1999. 

Recommendations: 1. Amend the proposed resolution by substituting 

$90,657,075 for $71,927,430 on page 2, line 8. in 
accordance with Comment 4 above. 

2. Approve the proposed resolution, as amended. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

48 




MAYOR'S OFFICE OF HOUSING 

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 



Attachment 
Pape 1 of 2 



WILLIE LEWIS BROWN, JR. 
MAYOR 
MORTGAGE CREDIT CERTIFICATE PROGRAM 
STATISTICAL PROFILE AS OF DECEMBER 31. 1998 MARC1A ROSEN- 

DIRECTOR 



Total number of households assisted: 



1 1 MCCs issued 
32 Commitments Issued 
4 Cancelled 



Total: 146 



Median Household Income: 



Median Purchase Price: 



$46,716 



SI 90.000 



(65% of Sin Francisco SMSA median for 
household of 4 persons. £1% of mediin fo: 2 
person household) 



Median Mortgage Amount: 



5157,500 



Houschuld size breakdown: 




1 person 

2 persons 

3 persons 

4 or more persons 
Unknown 


73 
25 
24 
24 



(50%) 
(18%) 
(16%) 
(16%) 
(0%) 




Ethnic breakdown: White 

Asian/Pacific Islander 
African- Am eri can 
Hispanic 
Other/decline to state 


62 households 
42 
24 
11 
7 


(42%) 

(29%) 

(16%) 

(8%) 

(5%) 




Neighborhood breakdown: 














Bayview/Hunter Point 
Diamond Ilts^'Sunnyside 
Bemal Heights 
Potrero Hill 
Visitacion Valley 


22 

22 
5 
4 
11 


Mission 6 
Outer Mission 23 
Ocean View 1 5 
Richmond 1 
Sunset 2 


South of Market 
Upper Market 
Western .Addition 
North Beach/Manna 
North of Market 
Unknown 


10 
6 

15 
3 
1 



Rev. 1201/98.mh 















25 VAN NESS AVENUE. SUITE 600 • SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94102 • (415)252-3177 

TDD (415) 252-3107 

49 



FAX (415) 252-3140 



in/20.'99 WED 16:06 FAI 415 252 3140 



&AY0R - HOUSING 



12002 




MAYOR'S OFFICE OF HOUSING 
CITY AND COUNTY Or SAN FRANCISCO 



Attachment 



;CO 2 oi 2 



WILLIE LEWIS BROWN, JR. 

MORTGAGE CREDIT CERTIFICATE PROGRAM MAYOR 

STATISTICAL PROFILE AS OF October 20. 1999 MAROA ROSEN 

DIRECTOR 



Total number of households assisted: 



S7 MCCs issued 
20 Co mmit ments Issued 
Cancelled 
Total: 107 



Median Household Income: 



Median Purchase Price: 



S43 ,200 (60% of San Francisco SMSA median for 

household of 4 persons; 75% of median for 2 
person household) 

S20 1,000 



Median Mortgage Amount 
Household size breakdown: 



SI 54.000 



Ethnic breakdown: 



lown: 


1 person 




51 


(48%) 




2 persons 




19 


(18%) 




3 persons 




17 


(15%) 




4 or more ; 


persons 


20 


(19%) 




Unknown 







(0%) 


White 




45 Households 


(42%) 


Asian/Pacific 


Islander 


47 




(44%) 


African- American 


7 




(6.5%) 


Hispanic 




1 




(1%) 


Other/decline to state 


7 




(6.5%) 



Neighborhood breakdown: 



Bayview/Huntcr Point 


12 


Mission 


8 


South of Marker. 


7 


Diamond Hts7Sunnysidc 


13 


Outer Mission 


22 


Upper Market 


3 


Bemal Heights 


5 


Ocean View 


11 


Western Addition 


3 


Potrero Hill 


7 


Richmond 


2 


North Beach/Marina 





Visitacion Valley 


9 


Sunset 


1 


North of Market 
Unknown 



4 



Riv. 1 0/20/99 .roh 



25 VAN NESS AVENUE, SUITE 600 • SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94102 • (415)252-3177 • FAX (415) 252-3 140 

TDD (415) 252-3107 
50 



Memo to Finance Committee 

October 27, 1999 Finance and Labor Committee Meeting 

Items 7 and 8 - Files 99-1941 and 99-0652 



Items 



Comment: 



File 99-1941 is a hearing to consider Fire Department 
Overtime expenditures. 

File 99-0652 is a hearing to consider the cost of 
transferring paramedic services from the Health 
Department to the Fire Department. 

The Budget Analyst has been informed by the Office of 
the Chair of the Finance and Labor Committee that it is 
the intention of the Committee to continue these hearings 
to the Committee's meeting of November 10, 1999. 



Recommendation: 



Continue the hearings to the Finance and Labor 
Committee meeting: of November 10, 1999. 



Supervisor Yee 
Supervisor Bierman 
President Ammiano 
Supervisor Becerril 
Supervisor Brown 
Supervisor Katz 
Supervisor Kaufman 
Supervisor Leno 
Supervisor Newsom 
Supervisor Teng 
Supervisor Yaki 
Clerk of the Board 
Controller 
Legislative Analyst 
Matthew Hymel 
Stephen Kawa 
Ted Lakey 




Board of Supervisors 
Budget Analyst